2000SCMR832 (PLP)
Malik MUMTAZ AHMED and others — Appellants Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000SCMR832 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J., Mamoon Kazi, |
| Parties | Malik MUMTAZ AHMED and others — Appellants Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000SCMR832 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000SCMR832 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J., Mamoon Kazi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000SCMR832 (PLP) (Malik MUMTAZ AHMED and others — Appellants Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant (in C.A. 453 of 1998).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.A. No.453 of 1998).
- Nemo for Appellant (in C.A. No.701 of 1998).
- Nemo for Respondents, (in C. A. No. 701 of 1998).
- M.A.I. Qarni, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.A. No. 1156 of 1998).
- Ahmedullah Farooqi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.A. No.286 of 1999).
- Anwar Kamal, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A.I. Qarni, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.A. No.286 of 1999).
- Ahmedullah Farooqi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C.A. No.287 of 1999).
- Anwar Kamal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No.287 of 1999).
- Ahmedullah Farooqi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.288, 289, 290, 291 and 292 of 1999).
- Anwar Kamal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.As. Nos.288, 289, 290, 291 and 292 of 1999).
- C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.A. No.317 of 1999).
- Mian Muhammad Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.A. No.318 of 1999).
- Anwar Kamal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No.459 of 1999).
- Abul Khair, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.441, 442, 443, 445 and 446 of 1999).
- M.S. Ghoury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in. C.As. Nos.441, 442, 443, 445 and 446 of 1999).
- M.S. Ghoury for Respondents (in C.As. Nos.457 and 458 of 1998).
- Abdul Mujib Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575 and 576 of 1998).
- Anwar Kamal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.As, Nos.566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575 and 576 of 1998).
- A.R. Akhtar for Respondent in (.in C.A. No.435 of 1998).
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.As. Nos.436, 437, 438, 440, 444, 448, 449, 450 and 451 of 1998).
- Masood Mukhtar Naqvi for Respondent (C.As. Nos.439, 460, 461 and 462 of 1998).
- A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.A.No.469 of 1998).
- Nemo for Respondents (C.A.No.469 of 1998).
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 18-12-1997 in Appeal No.942-L of 1997, dated 5-12-1997 in Appeal No.760-R of 1997, dated 26-7-1997 in Appeal No.285-L of 1998, dated 8-10-1998 passed in Appeal No.301-K of 1998, 551-K of 1998, 552-K of 1998, 553-K of 1998, 577-K of 1998., 772-K of 1998, 781-K of 1998, dated 19-11-1997 in Appeal No.612-L of 1997, dated 28-11-1997 in Appeal No.697-L of 1998, dated 25-11-1997 in Appeal No.730-L of 1997, dated 27-11-1997 in Appeal No.676-L of 1997, dated 25-11-1997 in Appeal No.689-L of 1997, dated 31-10-1997 in Appeal No.539-K of 1997, dated 23-10-1997 in Appeal No.435-K of 1997, dated 29-10-1997 in Appeals Nos.523-K of 1997, 357-K of 1997, 360-K of 1997, 359-K of 1997, dated 24-10-1997 in Appeal No-349-K of 1997, dated 25-10-1997 in Appeal No-278-K of 1997, dated 24-10-1997 in Appeal No.477-K of 1997, 482-K of 1997, 489-K of 1997, 476-K of 1997, 475-K of 1997, 479-K of 1997, 483-K of 1997, 493-K of 1997, 486-K of 1997, 480-K of 1997, 488-K of 1997, dated 22-10-1997 in Appeals Nos.399-K of 1997, 405-K of 1997, 403-K of 1997, 400-K of 1997, 317-K of 1997, 401-K of 1997, 287-K of 1997, 21-8-1997 in Appeal No.542, 543, 545, 544-R of 1997, dated 30 10-1997 in Appeal No.540-K of 1997 22-10-1997 in Appeals Nos.418, 417 and 384-K of 1997 respectively). Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)
.
S.2-A
Amendment brought about in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 by insertion of S.2-A was procedural in nature and, therefore, it was retrospective in operation and applied to the pending cases as well as to the cause of action which arose prior to the insertion of S.2-A, in the Act. Muhammad Afzal v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation 1999 SCMR 92; Ghulam Mustafa Khairati v. Federation of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1603 and Aftab Ahmed v. K.E.S.C. 1999 SCMR 197 ref. Appellant in person (in C. A. No. 1156 of 1998). Appellant (absent) (in C.A. No.317 of 1999). Appellant in person (in C.A. No.459 of 1999). Appellant in person (in C.As. Nos.457 and 458 of 1998). Appellant in, person (in C.A. No.435 of 1998). Appellant in person (in C.As. Nos.436, 437, 438, 440, 444, 448, 449, 450 and 451 of 1998). Appellant in person (C.As.Nos.439, 460, 461 and 462 of 1998).
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.
In the abovementioned 50 cases, the appeals preferred by the appellants before the Hon'ble Service Tribunal were dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the provisions of section 2-A which was added in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), was prospective in operation and therefore, the appellants, whose services were terminated before coming into force of section 2-A of the Act, were not entitled to avail of the remedy which became available to them as a result of insertion of section 2-A (ibid) in the Act the view taken by the learned Tribunal runs contrary to the view expressed by this Court in the case of Muhammad Afzal v, Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (1999 SCMR 92), Ghulam Mustafa Khairati v. Federation of Pakistan (1998 SCMR 1603) and Aftab Ahmed v. K.E.S.C. (1999 SCMR 197). In all the abovementioned three reported decisions, the view taken by this Court was that the amendment brought about in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 by insertion of section 2-A, was procedural in nature and therefore, it was retrospective in operation and therefore, .it applied to the pending cases as well as to the cause of action which arose prior to the insertion of section 2-A in the Act. We, accordingly, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the learned Service Tribunal and remand the cases to the Service Tribunal for decision in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs. M.B.A./M-16/S Appeal allowed.