1989 PLP 1777 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD 1QBAL KHAN and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, GUJRANWALA and 9 another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1777 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD 1QBAL KHAN and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, GUJRANWALA and 9 another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (x of 197.1) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1777 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (x of 197.1) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1777 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1777 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD 1QBAL KHAN and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, GUJRANWALA and 9 another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.731 of 1988).
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P.No.741 of 1988).
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.992 of 1988).
- Date of hearing: 15th March, 1989.
- Ghulam Mustafa, Advocate Supreme Court for all Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 25‑5‑1988 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, in Appeals Nos.743/451 /85, 652/43‑1/85 and 216/674/84). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Petitioners' departmental appeals had not been decided within 90 days, therefore, they tiled appeals before the Tribunal, which were admitted to regular hearing‑‑During pendency of appeals, departmental appeals were disposed of‑‑Petitioners did not file separate appeals against the orders made by Appellate Authority but prayed that they should also he permitted to challenge the orders passed in departmental appeals in the appeals already pending‑‑Tribunal not only rejected the prayer but also dismissed the appeals on the ground that with the dismissal of departmental appeals, the appeals already pending before Tribunal had become in fructuous Leave to appeal granted to consider that the view taken by the Tribunal was in conflict with the decision in S.A. Mukarrim v. Government of Sind 1988 S C M R
826. S.A. Mukarim v. Government of Sind 1988 SCMR 826 ref. Ghulam Mustafa, Advocate Supreme Court for all Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These are three petitions for special leave to appeal from the order dated 25‑5‑88 of the Punjab Service Tribunal .The petitioners were Foodgrain Supervisors/Inspectors and were in charge of wheat stock at Nowshera Virkan Centre. A Martial Law Inspection Team conducted a raid on the centre on 21‑10‑83 and found huge shortage in the wheat stocks. Consequent upon this discovery, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners. Departmental proceedings were also taken against them. Consequent upon these proceedings, not only their services were terminated but they were also asked to make up the loss suffered by the Government. The petitioners filed departmental appeals. These were not decided within 90 days whereupon they filed appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appeals were admitted to regular hearing. During the pendency of the appeals, the departmental appeals were disposed of. The petitioners did not file separate appeals against the orders made by the appellate authority but prayed that they should also be permitted to challenge the said orders in the appeals already pending in the trial Court. The Learned Tribunal not only rejected this prayer but also dismissed the appeals on the ground that with the dismissal of the departmental appeals, the appeals already pending before the Tribunal had become infructuous.The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the orders of the Tribunal.
2. In support of these petitions it is contended that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is in conflict with the decision of this Court in S.A Mukarim v. Government of Sind (1988 S C. M R 826). The contention raised needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.1,000 in each petition. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to tile additional documents, if any. M.A. K./2‑61/S Leave granted.