2005 PLP 1206 (SCMR)
MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1206 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil service, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1206 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil service, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1206 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1206 (SCMR) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Allah Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Dr. Mohy-ud-Din Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th April, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment, dated 17-6-2004 passed in C.P. No. 1549-L of 2003).
Appeal before Service Tribunal
Limitation for a civil servant to go in appeal before Service Tribunal could not in any case be stretched beyond one hundred and twenty days. 2003 SCMR 826 ref. Muhammad Siddique v. Mian Amir Khisro 1985 SCMR 1848 and Ghulam Ali Memon's case 2000 SCMR 1474 rel.
Art. 212(3)
Question of limitation, though raised before Service Tribunal, but remained unattended
Effect
Supreme Court suo motu could entertain such question.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner initiated his arguments saying that the question of limitation has incorrectly been determined against the petitioner and that, in view of 2003 SCMR 826 the period of 90 days is restricted only to wait before filing an appeal and that section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act is silent on the point as to how much period thereafter the civil servant would go to the Service Tribunal.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment but were not satisfied that it laid down a proper interpretation of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. Moreover, it runs contrary to the verdict of a larger Bench (of four Judges) of this Court rendered in the case of Muhammad Siddique v. Mian Amir Khisro 1985 SCMR 1848 and another ruling in Ghulam Ali Memon's case reported as 2000 SCMR 1474 where it has been settled authoritatively that limitation for a Civil Servants to go in appeal before the Service Tribunal cannot, in any case, be stretched beyond one hundred and twenty days.
3. The original order against the petitioner was passed on 16-7-1987 against which he made a representation on 27-7-1987 but the same remained unanswered. According to the learned counsel it is unanswered even up to this day. We are afraid that this is not the correct position because the original order; of termination dated 16-7-1987 was withdrawn on 3-12-1982 and the petitioner was reinstated, Thereafter the withdrawal order was also rescinded vide another order dated 5-12-1988 and thus, the department, wittingly or unwittingly; revived the cause of action for the benefit of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted no departmental representation against the second order aforesaid.
4. The interesting aspect of the case is that the .petitioner instead of going to the Service Tribunal filed a writ petition against the order of termination dated 16-7-1987. The writ petition was dismissed on 25-4-1992 with observation that the petitioner should resort to the Service Tribunal. Even then the petitioner resorted to the Tribunal on 6-12-1997 i.e. 5 years after the above decision and 10 years after the original order of termination.
5. This Court though suo motu can entertain the question of limitation yet it was observed that the Tribunal did not attend to the question despite the fact that the respondents had taken the plea of limitation in their reply (P.90).
6. Considered from any angle, the review cannot be allowed. The same is hereby dismissed. S.A.K./M-263/S Review dismissed.