PLC(CS) 2010

2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR KHAN BANGASH, INSPECTOR OF POLICE and 3 others Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore High Court
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.5261 of 2009, decided on 26th June, 2009.
Honorable Judges
Arshad Mahmood, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Lahore High Court
Bench Members Arshad Mahmood, J
Parties MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR KHAN BANGASH, INSPECTOR OF POLICE and 3 others Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Arshad Mahmood, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR KHAN BANGASH, INSPECTOR OF POLICE and 3 others Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Mian Tanvir Iqbal Arain for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

Arts. 189 & 199

Constitutional petition

Civil service

Judgment of Supreme Court; binding effect of

Petitioner and three others had sought a direction to authorities for decision of their case in accordance. with the judgment of the Service Tribunal and Supreme Court of Pakistan in other cases

Contention of the petitioners was that their case was at par with the case of persons whose appeals were decided by the Service Tribunal and Supreme Court; and that they (petitioners) also deserved the same treatment

Article 189 of the Constitution had commanded that judgment of the Supreme Court was binding upon each and every organ of the State and they were bound to honour and respect the same

Authorities were directed to consider the case of the petitioners and also extend benefit to them, if their case was found at par with the persons whose appeals were accepted by the Supreme Court. Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185 ref.

Judgment & Decree

ARSHAD MAHMOOD, J.

Muhammad Zubair Khan Bangash and 3 others through this constitutional petition seek a direction to respondent No.1 for decision of their case in accordance with the judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal and the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeals Nos.2013 to 2031 of 2006 and 4 to 18 of 2008.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that case of petitioners is at par with the case of persons whose appeals were decided by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal and the Honourable Supreme Court and they also deserve the same treatment. In support relies upon Hameed Akhtar Naizi v. The Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185. It is further submitted that no distinction can be drawn between case of the petitioners and the appellants before the PST.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and record perused.

4. Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 commands that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding upon each and every organ of the State and they are bound to honour and respect the same.

5. Therefore, respectfully bowing before the dictum of law of the Honourable Supreme Court, respondent No.1 is directed to consider case of the petitioners and also extend benefit to them, if their case is found at par to the persons whose appeals were accepted by the Punjab Service Tribunal.

6. Disposed of with the above directions. H.B.T./M-836/L Order accordingly.