PLC(CS) 1992

1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ch. GHULAM NABI Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J&K and 8 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal AJ&K
Decided Date
Appeal No. 369 of 1987, decided on 15th January 1991.
Honorable Judges
Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal AJ&K
Bench Members Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, Member
Parties Ch. GHULAM NABI Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J&K and 8 others
Primary Law (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules, 1978, (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules, 1978, (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal AJ&K bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, Member.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Ch. GHULAM NABI Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J&K and 8 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules, 1978 (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975 (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975

Representation

  • Sardar Rafique Mahmood for Appellant.
  • Addl. A. G. for Respondent No.1.
  • Ishfaq Hussain Kayani for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Headnotes / Summary

Seniority

Promotion

Appellant a Section Officer challenging promotion of Respondents as Section Officers by which his inter se seniority over said respondents was disturbed

Respondents secured promotion after having qualified a competitive test by which their names were placed on panel of approved candidates for posts of Section Officers

Appellant was also in Secretariat Service at that time but he did not choose to appear in the lest to qualify himself for post of Section Officer

Impugned orders of promotion of respondents were made by Government after hearing appellant and giving due consideration of his case of promotion on merits

Respondents had qualified themselves for the post of Section Officers long before enforcement of Section Officers (Service) Rules, 1978; under Rules then existing

Appellant having himself not chosen to take qualifying test which was prescribed for the year 1977, for promotion of suitable candidate, could not claim seniority over respondents who got themselves .qualified through said test

Appellant's appeal was filed at a belated stage which could not remedy old wrongs which he suffered because of his own indolence as law helps the vigilant and not the indolent

Appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

S.4

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules, 1978

Service rules

Rules also include administrative instructions by rule-making authority competent to alter or amend the rules, so far said instructions not repugnant to provisions of Rules made by competent Authority. PLD 1964 SC 21 ref.,

S.4

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules, 1978

Promotion

Appellant challenging seniority of respondents over him due to their promotion as Section Officers, failed to challenge impugned order in his review petition so far it related to one respondent who was substituted by an other person long after filing his appeal before Service Tribunal

Appeal brought against said respondent before Tribunal without firstly impleading him as a necessary party, held, was not maintainable on account of fact that appellant failed to avail of departmental remedy essential for invoking jurisdiction of Service Tribunal.

Judgment & Decree

(b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975

S.4

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules, 1978

Service rules

Rules also include administrative instructions by rule-making authority competent to alter or amend the rules, so far said instructions not repugnant to provisions of Rules made by competent Authority. PLD 1964 SC 21 ref., (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975

S.4

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules, 1978

Promotion

Appellant challenging seniority of respondents over him due to their promotion as Section Officers, failed to challenge impugned order in his review petition so far it related to one respondent who was substituted by an other person long after filing his appeal before Service Tribunal

Appeal brought against said respondent before Tribunal without firstly impleading him as a necessary party, held, was not maintainable on account of fact that appellant failed to avail of departmental remedy essential for invoking jurisdiction of Service Tribunal. Sardar Rafique Mahmood for Appellant. Addl. A. G. for Respondent No.1. Ishfaq Hussain Kayani for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.