1988 PLP 1950 (SCMR)
MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1950 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal, |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1950 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1950 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1950 (SCMR) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Fazal-i-Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate- on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th June, 1988.
- Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 10-3-1987 in Appeal No.160(R) of 1984).
Art.212--Ministry of Railways Letter No.E-73/3-PC-1/60 of 1979, read with Letter No.E-IV/83-PC.1/11, dated 20-8-1983--Leave to appeal granted to examine whether petitioner, who was not promoted to Grade-16, was not entitled to receive disputed consolidated allowance vis-a-vis higher grade on Basis that he was found entitled to emoluments of higher grade. Petitioners in Person.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a Railway Civil Servant against the dismissal by the Federal Service Tribunal of his appeal which had arisen out of the rejection of his claim to an allowance. It was "Rs.350 from 1‑7‑1983 onward on the basis of Ministry of Railways Letter No.E‑73/3‑PC‑1/60 of 1979, read with their Letter No.E‑IV/83‑PC.1/11, dated the 20th August, 1983". The allowance was denied to the appellant by the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the appellant was not promoted to B‑16 so as to be entitled to Rs.350 as consolidated allowance. Although it prima facie appears that the petitioner was not promoted in accordance with law to B‑16; however, he was allowed the difference between the emoluments of B‑15 and B‑16 on a grievance raised before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. It was on the assumption that he was appointed to such a post in respect of which he could claim pay in B‑16 for the relevant period. After hearing the petitioner in person in support of this petition and learned counsel for the Railways; we consider it a fit case to examine, inter alia whether the petitioner was not entitled to receive the disputed allowance vis‑a‑vis the higher Grade on the basis that he was found entitled to the emoluments for the higher Grade. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted. To be heard with appeal arising out of C.P.No.238‑R of 1987, leave to appeal in which was granted on 26‑6‑1988. M.Y.H./M‑555/S Leave to appeal granted.