1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
TALAT HAMID NIAZI Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS
| Citation | 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, Mazhar Munir and S. Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman, Members |
| Parties | TALAT HAMID NIAZI Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman, Mazhar Munir and S. Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (TALAT HAMID NIAZI Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.4‑Efficiency bar‑Crossing of‑Withholding of crossing of efficiency bar supported by adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports‑Order not interfered with by Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑
In this case, the learned counsel for the appellant has adequately explained the reasons for non‑appearance in this Court, by him on 28‑5‑1979. We accordingly direct that this appeal may be restored to its original number.
2. However, on merits, we find that to start with the order of refusal of allowing to cross the Efficiency Bar by the appellant was supported b A the relevant adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant. After the introduction of National Pay Scales in the year 1972, the appellant's pay was fixed in the scale admissible to her in which there was as yet no stage for crossing of Efficiency Bar. Thus the appellant had no grievance in this behalf.
3. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.