1989SCMR646 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR646 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR646 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR646 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR646 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Shakur, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advucate on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988.
- Abdul Shakur, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advucate on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18-5-1987 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.23(R) of 1987).
Art. 212(3). -Compulsory retirement from service--No departmental appeal filed by petitioner within time--Petitioner's appeal before Service Tribunal dismissed as time-barred--Petitioner's plea for filing departmental appeal beyond period of limitation was that he did not think that any useful purpose would be served by filing such appeal, so long as Appellate Authority during whose period he was compulsorily retired, was not transferred as he did not expect any relief from the said authority--Such explanation was not considerd to be satisfactory by Service Tribunal and the appeal before it was dismissed on the short ground that no fault could be found in the order of Appellate Authority--Service Tribunal's view for dismissing of appeal, was sustained and leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Shakur, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advucate on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑For the reasons given in the petition for restoration, the order dated 19‑12‑1987 dismissing the petition for non -prosecution is recalled and the petition restored to its original number. Let the same be heard today. The petitioner was compulsorily retired by order dated 2‑1‑1985 but he did not challenge the same by a departmental appeal, till 3‑9‑1986, although he could file it only by 1‑2‑1985. Hence the appeal was dismissed as barred by time. The reason given for filing the appeal with so much delay was that the petitioner did not think that any useful purpose would be served by filing an appeal so long as the appellate authority (I.G.Police) during whose period he was compulsorily retired was not transferred as he did not expect any relief from the said Inspector‑General of Police. This explanation was not considered to be satisfactory by the Service Tribunal and the appeal before it was dismissed on the short ground that no fault A could be found in the order of the appellate authority. We. entirely agree with the above view of the Service Tribunal. A.A./M‑701/S Petition dismissed.