1988 PLP 1678(2) (SCMR)
BASHIR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1678(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1678(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1678(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1678(2) (SCMR) (BASHIR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate- on-Record (since dead) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1988.
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record (since dead) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 10-5-1981 of the Lahore High Court in I.-C.A. 527 of 1981).
S.12(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Retirement- Petitioner having completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits, was directed to retire from service--Order impugned--Competent authority was empowered under Service Rules applicable to petitioner, to direct such retirement and there being nothing to show that authority concerned had wrongly exercised this power, petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.12(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Retirement‑ Petitioner having completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits, was directed to retire from service‑‑Order impugned‑‑Competent authority was empowered under Service Rules applicable to petitioner, to direct such retirement and there being nothing to show that authority concerned had wrongly exercised this power, petition dismissed. Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record (since dead) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was a Sub‑Engineer in the Municipal Committee, Narowal. By an order dated 16‑1‑1980, he was retired from service after he had completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits. He challenged the order of retirement in writ jurisdiction in the High Court but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed that under the service rule applicable to petitioner the competent authority was empowered to direct the retirement of the petitioner after he had completed twenty‑five years of service qualifying him for pension and other retirement benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the authority concerned has wrongly exercised this power petition is dismissed. M.I./B‑65/S Petition dismissed.