PLC(CS) 2003

2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SECRETARY EDUCATION and others Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN and others

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petitions Nos.226 to 231-L of 2002, decided on 1st April, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Parties SECRETARY EDUCATION and others Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN and 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 2003 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 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SECRETARY EDUCATION and others Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 1st April, 2002.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 25-9-2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeals Nos. 1204 to 1219 of 1998).

Art.212(3)

Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XIII, R.1

Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4

Petition for leave to appeal was barred by forty-four days

Condonation of delay

Reason given in application was that file continued moving from one Department to another to determine, whether appeal should be filed or not

Validity

Such ground could not be accepted as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay

Supreme Court dismissed application and also main petition as barred by time and refused leave.

Judgment & Decree

MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.

By this common judgment we propose to decide Civil Petitions Nos.226 to 231-L of 2002 involving identical questions of law and facts.

2. These petitions are directed against the consolidated judgment dated 25-9-2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal. Each petition is barred by 44 days. The only reason given in the application seeking condonation of delay was that the file continued moving from one department to another to determine whether the appeal should be filed or not. This ground has never been accepted as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay as per law declared by its Court in a number of cases.

3. Consequently the applications for condonation of delay are hereby dismissed, as a result of which the main petitions are also dismissed as barred by time and leave refused. S.A.K./S-218/S Leave refused.