2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
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: Javed Iqbal and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, 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)) (GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. H. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 195‑L and 199‑L of 2002).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 13‑8‑2001. passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeals No. 1716.and 1667 of 2000). ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Barred by limitation‑‑‑Delay caused by Government functionaries‑‑‑Appeals tiled by civil servants were allowed by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Petitions against the judgments of Service Tribunal were assailed by Government which were barred by 89 and 97 days‑‑‑Government failed to furnish any plausible justification on the basis of which the delay could be condoned‑‑‑Delay appeared to be deliberate and intentional‑‑‑Supreme Court directed the Authorities to take care of the matter and to conduct a thorough probe and further directed to fix the responsibility for the delay and action be initiated against the delinquents to stop such condemnable practice in future and compliance report be submitted to Supreme Court within prescribed time‑‑‑Petitions were dismissed as time barred.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Barred by limitation‑‑‑Delay caused by Government functionaries‑‑‑Appeals tiled by civil servants were allowed by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Petitions against the judgments of Service Tribunal were assailed by Government which were barred by 89 and 97 days‑‑‑Government failed to furnish any plausible justification on the basis of which the delay could be condoned‑‑‑Delay appeared to be deliberate and intentional‑‑‑Supreme Court directed the Authorities to take care of the matter and to conduct a thorough probe and further directed to fix the responsibility for the delay and action be initiated against the delinquents to stop such condemnable practice in future and compliance report be submitted to Supreme Court within prescribed time‑‑‑Petitions were dismissed as time barred. A. H. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 195‑L and 199‑L of 2002). Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th May, 2002. These petitions (CPLA Nos. 195‑L and 199‑L of 2002) are hopelessly time‑barred and filed after a delay of 89 and 97 days respectively for which no plausible justification could be furnished on the basis whereof such delay could be condoned.
2. In our considered opinion the delay appears to be deliberate and intentional which aspect of the matter should be taken care of by the Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, who should conduct a thorough probe and fix responsibility for said delay and action be initiated against the delinquents to stop such condemnable practice in future. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, for compliance and report to the Registrar of this Court within a fortnight. Petitions are dismissed being time‑barred. Q. M. H./G‑119/S Petition dismissed.