1990 PLP 1508 (SCMR)
Prof. WIQAR AHMED and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOC HISTAN through Chief Secretary,
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1508 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman and |
| Parties | Prof. WIQAR AHMED and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOC HISTAN through Chief Secretary, |
| Primary Law | Balochistan Civil Servants Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1508 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Balochistan Civil Servants Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1508 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1508 (SCMR) (Prof. WIQAR AHMED and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOC HISTAN through Chief Secretary,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja M. Afsar, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- SA.M. Quadri, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, Quetta dated 28‑11‑1988 passed in Service Appeal No.79, 80, 85 and 91 of 1988). ‑‑‑‑S.13(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Retirement from service‑‑‑ Petitioners moved Service Tribunal in the matter but appeals were held to be incompetent in view of prohibition imposed by Provisional Constitution Order, 1981‑‑‑Petitioners did not, thereafter, seek any further remedy till decision of Supreme Court in the case Pakistan v. Public‑at‑Large reported as P L D 198? S C 304‑‑‑Petitioners again brought the matter before Service Tribunal but the same was dismissed as hopelessly time‑barred‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑ Decision of Service Tribunal and act of petitioners in not pursuing the matter in previous litigation had rendered that decision as a past and closed matter which could not be revived unless there be express words of the statute‑‑‑Such words being not the statute, petitioners could not seek remedy in 1987 against an order passed in 1980‑‑‑Judgment of Supreme Court P L D 1987 S C 304 has prospective effect and does not deal with cases already concluded or decided‑‑‑No question of law of public importance having arisen in the case, leave to appeal refused. Pakistan and others v. Public‑at‑Large and others P L D 1987 S C 304 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners were all civil servants who were retired from service under section 13(2) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act in spite of having good record of service. Their Review Petition did not yield any result for them. Two of them moved the Service Tribunal in the matter but by decisions given in 1981, the appeals were held to be incompetent in view of the prohibition imposed by the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. They did not thereafter seek further relief till the decision of Shariat Appellate Bench in the case Pakistan and others v. Public‑at‑Large and others P L D 1987 S C
304. The again brought the matter before the Service Tribunal but the same was dismissed as hopelessly time‑barred.
2. In seeking leave to appeal against this decision of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended that in view of the constitutional bar to their agitating before the Service Tribunal or any other forum, the matter could not be agitated further either before the Service Tribunal or in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. It was only when this provision was struck down by the Supreme Court in a Shariat matter that an occasion arose for taking up the grievance and after filing representation with the departmental authorities, appeals were filed forthwith before the Service Tribunal.
3. We find that with the decision of the Service Tribunal in the two matters and by the act of the Petitioners in the others in not pursuing the matter, it became a past and closed matter and could not be revived unless there be express words of the statute. There being none, the petitioners cannot seek remedy in 1987 against an order passed in 1980. Besides, the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench has a prospective effect and does not deal with cases already concluded or decided.
4. No question of law of public importance, as required under Article 212(3) of the question, arises in these cases and the leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. A.A./W‑78/S Leave refused.