1994 PLP 955 (SCMR)
ISHTIAQ AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MEMBER, FINANCE, RAILWAY BOARD, MINISTRY OF
| Citation | 1994 PLP 955 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ISHTIAQ AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MEMBER, FINANCE, RAILWAY BOARD, MINISTRY OF |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 955 (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 955 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 955 (SCMR) (ISHTIAQ AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MEMBER, FINANCE, RAILWAY BOARD, MINISTRY OF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 1993.
- We have heard Ch. Abdur Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 2b‑4‑1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 233(L)/91). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Appeal to Service Tribunal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Withdrawal of advance increments without notice‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Documents placed on record revealed that Department continued paying increments up to the end of February, 1990 and as such, there was force in the contention of petitioner that order dated 25‑9‑1989 through which advance increments were withdrawn from civil servant was never communicated to him‑‑‑Civil servant having gained knowledge of order in question in April, 1990, when his advance increment was stopped for the first time, he preferred appeal against it to Service Tribunal which was dismissed as time‑barred‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider question of limitation.
Judgment & Decree
WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Ishtiaq Ahmed, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 26‑4‑1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby his appeal against the order of the authority declining his prayer for restitution of advance increments withdrawn from him on 25‑9‑1989, was dismissed. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner graduated from the Sindh University on 2‑11‑1981 while serving as Upper Division Clerk in the Railways, and on his application, four advance increments under the Incentive Scheme were granted to him with effect from 2‑11‑1981, the date on which he improved his qualifications which he received uptil February, 1990. Admittedly this concession was withdrawn vide order dated 25‑9‑1989 but the order was never communicated to him, so much so, that he was paid the increments even alongwith the pay of February paid to him in the month of March. According to him, he got knowledge of the order on 11‑4‑1990 when the increments had been deducted from his pay for the month of March. His representation having failed, he preferred appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed as time‑barred. We have heard Ch. Abdur Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case. The documents placed on the file reveal that the department continued paying the increments up to the end of February, 1990 and, as such, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 25‑9‑1989 through which the advance increments were withdrawn from the petitioner was never communicated to him. Leave is granted to consider the question of limitation. AA./I‑184/S Leave granted