1989SCMR683 (PLP)
ABDUL AZIZ BHATTI, ADVOCATE — Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE, through Secretary Labour Department, Punjab, Lahore — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR683 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Usman Ali Shah and Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ BHATTI, ADVOCATE — Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE, through Secretary Labour Department, Punjab, Lahore — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR683 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR683 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Usman Ali Shah and Naimuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR683 (PLP) (ABDUL AZIZ BHATTI, ADVOCATE — Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE, through Secretary Labour Department, Punjab, Lahore — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 23-11-1981 passed in Case No.185/1223/81).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)--Retirement--Civil servant's retirement order rectified in accordance with terms of Civil Court's verdict where he had challenged mode of his retirement--Civil servant claiming further relief from Government, which he had neither claimed nor obtained from the Civil Court--Such claim was rejected by Government and the Service Tribunal--Civil servant, held, having obtained from Civil Court all the relief that he was then seeking, could not now, during the course of implementation of those findings, seek more either from the Government or from the Service Tribunal--Service Tribunal had rightly held that rights of parties having been determined by Civil Court against which no appeal was filed, had become conclusive and binding on civil servant too--Petition being devoid of merit, leave to appeal was refused. Petitioner in Person.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1988. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner who finally retired as a civil servant from the Punjab Government w.e.f. 23‑2‑1969 seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby his claim, that his retirement should have been postponed to 23‑2‑1974 when he attained the age of the super‑annuation, was rejected. The petitioner had challenged his retirement from the service from a lower grade in the Civil Court. He had obtained a judgment and decree by which his retirement from a higher post but on attaining the age of 55 years was upheld, This judgment & decree is dated 15‑9‑1979. Against this judgment and decree the petitioner claimed no further relief. In giving effect to the judgment, the Government of the Punjab by a notification dated 10‑5‑1980 modified the order of his retirement to bring it in conformity with the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. Having received the benefits there under, he approached the Government for claiming retirement not at the age of 55 years but at the age of 60 years and also seeking pro forma promotion to which he may might have become entitled after attaining the age of 55 years and before the age of super-annuation determined by him. On not getting the relief, he approached the Service Tribunal which dismissed his claim primarily on the ground that it was fully taken care of by the judgment of the Civil Court which was conclusive as between the parties. The petitioner has appeared in person, to contend that as his pleas with regard to retirement and status prevailed with the Civil Court and he obtained the judgment and decree, the claim made by him was in fact consequential to it. The petitioner having obtained from the Civil Court all the relief that he was then seeking, cannot now during the course of implementation of the judgment and decree seek more ether from the Tribunal or from the Government. Tribunal has rightly held that the rights of the parties have been A determined by the Civil Court against which none agitated. It is conclusive and binding on the petitioner too. There is no merit and leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. AA./A‑396/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave to appeal refused