1994 PLP 544 (SCMR)
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD QAISAR HAYAT KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 544 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD QAISAR HAYAT KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 544 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 544 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 544 (SCMR) (FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD QAISAR HAYAT KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mumtaz Ali Mirza, Dy. A.‑G. and Ch. Akhtar AA Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1993.
- 3. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners and have perused the relevant record. Learned counsel for petitioners reiterated the contention earlier advanced before the Tribunal. The dictum laid down in the aforesaid precedent has correctly been applied by the Tribunal in the instant case. After hearing learned counsel for petitioners, we find that this is not a fit case for interference in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. In consequence this petition fails and leave is refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 20‑4‑1993 in Appeal No. 278‑L/1992). ‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil servant was denied move‑over to B.S. 18 on ground that tie having only earned "average" Annual Confidential Reports in the preceding five years was not entitled to grant of move‑over‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Supreme Court having laid down a dictum in Muhammad Anwar's case (PLD 1992 SC 144) that if there was no adverse report against civil servant and he had got average reports they would have to be treated as generally good for purpose of move- over; Service Tribunal acted on such dictum and ordered move‑over of civil servant‑‑‑Service Tribunal had correctly applied dictum of Supreme Court and thus no case was made out for interference in the judgment in question of Service Tribunal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.‑‑‑[Civil service]. Muhammad Anwar v. The Secretary, Establishment Division and others PLD 1992 SC 144 rel. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and three others have called in question the validity of judgment dated 20‑4‑1993, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), in Service Appeal No.278(L) of 1992.
2. The respondent employed as Electronic Engineer, in BPS‑17, in Pakistan Meteorological Department, was denied move‑over to BPS‑18, with effect from 1‑12‑1984, on the basis of the decision of the departmental authority. He approached the Tribunal in appeal which was accepted vide impugned judgment dated 20‑4‑1993, and he was granted the relief prayed for, by him in the appeal. The Tribunal repelled the contention raised by the departmental representative that the respondent had only earned "average" Annual Confidential Reports in the preceding five years and therefore was not entitled to the grant of move‑over. The Tribunal in fact relied on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Anwar v. The Secretary, Establishment Division and others (PLD 1992 SC 144), wherein it was observed, "if there is no adverse report against him and he gels "average reports" they would have to be treated as "generally good" for purpose of move‑over. Because a report of "average" cannot be treated as adverse unless specifically so treated and then conveyed to the civil servant as an adverse report."
3. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners and have perused the relevant record. Learned counsel for petitioners reiterated the contention earlier advanced before the Tribunal. The dictum laid down in the aforesaid precedent has correctly been applied by the Tribunal in the instant case. After hearing learned counsel for petitioners, we find that this is not a fit case for interference in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. In consequence this petition fails and leave is refused. AA./F‑281/S Leave refused.