1985 PLP 901 (SCMR)
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUBARIK ALI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 901 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, r.2(2)(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question of law of public importance as to whether, according to scheme of Rules, designating same person as "Authority" and also as "Authorised Officer" was permissible.‑‑Civil services. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUBARIK ALI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 901 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 901 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, r.2(2)(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question of law of public importance as to whether, according to scheme of Rules, designating same person as "Authority" and also as "Authorised Officer" was permissible.‑‑Civil services. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 901 (SCMR) (FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUBARIK ALI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Qayyum Malik, Deputy‑Attorney‑General for Pakistan with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all the above matters).
- Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P.No.981/1982).
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P.No.982 of 1982).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P.No.249‑R of 1982).
- Date of hearing: 8th April, 1984.
- Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qureshi,
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, r.2(2)(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question of law of public importance as to whether, according to scheme of Rules, designating same person as "Authority" and also as "Authorised Officer" was permissible.‑‑[Civil services]. Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qureshi,
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This order will dispose of the above petitions, as the question of law arising for decision in all these matters is the same.
2. The question, which calls for consideration, is whether, according to the Scheme of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973, it is permissible to designate the same person at the A "Authority" and also as the "Authorised Officer" under sub‑rules (2) and (3) of rule 2 of the above Rules.
3. Two out of the three members constituting the Federal Service Tribunal have held that it is not so permissible, while the third member dissented from this view and held that this was possible. However, in an earlier appeal, namely, Appeal No. 34(K) of 1979 Muhammad Kalimullah Postmaster (Central), a contrary view was expressed by the Federal Service Tribunal.
4. There being a conflict of opinion on this point in the Service Tribunal itself and the question being one of law, of considerable public importance, leave is granted to consider the question.
5. The appeals shall be made ready on the present record, with liberty to the parties to and further documents and put up for hearing at a very early date. 6.The interim order of stay will continue to remain in operation during the pendency of the appeals. S. Q. Leave granted.