1976 PLP 358 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE
| Citation | 1976 PLP 358 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with Art. 212(3)‑Service matters cognizable by Administrative Courts and Tribunals‑Service Tribunal declining to allow petitioner advantage of his previous service‑Matter not involving "a substantial question of law of public importance" and such being an essential condition under Art. 212(3), leave to appeal refused.‑Civil service,. |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Ahmed and Muhammad Gul, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 358 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 358 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with Art. 212(3)‑Service matters cognizable by Administrative Courts and Tribunals‑Service Tribunal declining to allow petitioner advantage of his previous service‑Matter not involving "a substantial question of law of public importance" and such being an essential condition under Art. 212(3), leave to appeal refused.‑Civil service,. bench comprising: Salahuddin Ahmed and Muhammad Gul, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 358 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 26th November 1975.
- We have heard the learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petition and we do not think that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance which is an essential condition under clause (3) of Article 212 of the Constitution for grant of leave.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 17‑3‑1975 in Appeal No. 58(R) of 1975). ‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with Art. 212(3)‑Service matters cognizable by Administrative Courts and Tribunals‑Service Tribunal declining to allow petitioner advantage of his previous service‑Matter not involving "a substantial question of law of public importance" and such being an essential condition under Art. 212(3), leave to appeal refused.‑[Civil service],.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑The petitioner who is employed as Stenographer in the Prime Minister's Secretariat (Public) as froth 4‑4‑1973 feels aggrieved by the order of the Service Tribunal Islamabad dated 17‑3:1975 in appeal No. 58 (R)/75 whereby the Tribunal declined to allow tile advantage of his previous service in. terms of the Establishment Division OM ,No. 6/15/48. M.E. dated 31‑3‑1951, prior to his appointment as Stenographer in the Prime Ministers Secretariat. On the examination of the record, the Tribunal found that the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer in the Prime Minister's Secretariat on his own request and had the option to refuse the appointment and therefore his previous service elsewhere in other departments cannot count towards the seniority as Stenographer in the Prime Minister's Secretariat. We have heard the learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petition and we do not think that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance which is an essential condition under clause (3) of Article 212 of the Constitution for grant of leave. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.