2001 PLP 300 (SCMR)
SHAH MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY — Petitioner Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 300 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C. J., Nasir Aslam Zahid |
| Parties | SHAH MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY — Petitioner Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 300 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 300 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C. J., Nasir Aslam Zahid.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 300 (SCMR) (SHAH MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY — Petitioner Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Akbar, Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 27th December, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 22-4-1999, passed in Appeal No.65-K of 1999).
Art. 212(3)
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Appeal before Service Tribunal
Appeal of the civil servant was dismissed by Service Tribunal being time-barred
Contention raised by the civil servant was that his case was pending before Reinstatement Review Committee and appeal was filed after the decision of Committee thus appeal before the Tribunal was not time-barred
Where the civil servant's case had been referred to the Committee and case remained there pending for decision, there was no occasion for the civil servant to approach the Service Tribunal unless final decision was taken in that regard
Service Tribunal had overlooked such fact of the case and the finding of the Service Tribunal that the case of civil servant was time-barred required reconsideration
Judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside and Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and remanded the case accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MAMOON KAZI, J.
The petitioner joined Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation on deputation on 7-10-1981 and voluntarily got his retirement from his parent department, Government Polyclinic, Sargodha, vide order, dated 15-2-1990. He was then appointed as Deputy General Manager with effect from 7-10-1989 but vide order, dated 21-7-1992, he was reverted to the post of Manager.
2. The order passed by the Service Tribunal indicates that the petitioner filed his departmental appeal on 20-8-1992 and thereafter, he filed further appeals, dated 7-9-1994, 24-10-1997 and 14-12-1998 respectively. Consequently, there being no provision in the Service Tribunals Act for subsequent appeal, it found that the petitioner's appeal filed before it was time-barred and dismissed the same.
3. Our attention has been invited to the' memorandum of appeal tiled by the petitioner before the Tribunal which indicates that after change of administration in the Pakistan Steel Mills, the case of the petitioner had been referred to "Reinstatement Review Committee" to review the cases of employees whose services has either been terminated or who had been dismissed or reverted from their original positions held by them and it remained there under process. The case of the petitioner is that although, the Ministry of Production, Government of Pakistan (respondent No.2) promoted 55 managers, some of whom were even junior to the petitioner to the grade of Deputy General Managers but the case of the petitioner failed to receive favourable consideration. The petitioner filed his representation before the respondent No.4 which finally conveyed its reply to the petitioner on 2-1-1999 therefore, according to Mr. Ali Akbar, the appeal of the petitioner was not time-barred as against such order the petitioner filed his appeal before the Tribunal on 30-1-1999.
4. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal indicates that such fact has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal in its impugned judgment. In case the petitioner's case has been referred to the said Committee and there it remained pending for decision, there was no occasion of him to approach the Tribunal unless a final decision was taken in this regard. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal that the case of the petitioner had become time-barred appears to be requiring reconsideration.
5. In the result, the petition is converted into an appeal and the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded for reconsideration. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S-82/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed