1990 PLP 1475 (SCMR)
HAMID ALI QURESHI‑‑Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS, WORKS,
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1475 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | HAMID ALI QURESHI‑‑Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS, WORKS, |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1475 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1475 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1475 (SCMR) (HAMID ALI QURESHI‑‑Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS, WORKS,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh.Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1989.
- 3. Mr. Muhammad Rafique Chohan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as he had rendered this service in the Department where he continued to remain posted, he could not be denied the benefit of it. It was also contended that his domicile was Punjab and he was rightly allocated to the Office in Lahore.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 25‑3‑1987 passed in Appeal No.409(L) of 1983). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Principle of fixation of seniority of petitioner upheld by Tribunal was in accordance with law applicable to case of petitioner‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, a civil servant seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 15th of March, 1987, whereby his appeal, claiming seniority from an earlier date, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was a pre‑integration employee having joined service in N.‑W.F.P., in the Office of the Comptroller, Northern .Area Peshawar, on 15‑3‑1955. On the disintegration of West Pakistan, he was to be repatriated to his original Province. The petitioner represented and sought his allocation in Punjab and posting in Lahore. His request was allowed and he was not repatriated to his original Province. In allocating his seniority in Punjab in the Office of the Director‑General, Audit and Accounts, Works Lahore, his previous service was not reckoned. He wanted his seniority to be counted from 22‑11‑1962 when he was confirmed in that Office and not from 17‑2‑1972 when he opted for it. The Service Tribunal denied him the benefit.
3. Mr. Muhammad Rafique Chohan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as he had rendered this service in the Department where he continued to remain posted, he could not be denied the benefit of it. It was also contended that his domicile was Punjab and he was rightly allocated to the Office in Lahore.
4. Having admitted in his appeal before the Tribunal that he was a pre- integration employee of N.‑W.F.P., and the Service Tribunal having held that he was a domicile of N.‑W.F.P., the petitioner cannot claim any benefit from his domicile in Punjab, if at all it was so, or for having rendered service during the period of. integration in the Province of West Pakistan, when he opted to seek a relaxation of the law applicable to civil servants at the time of disintegration of the Province. One of the conditions attaching to such relaxations was that if it was at their request and option, then they had to surrender their previous seniority and it is exactly that principle which had been applied against the petitioner in denying him the seniority. The principle of fixation of seniority upheld by the Tribunal is in accordance with the law applicable to the case. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. H.B.T./H‑83/S Leave refused.