1997SCMR 19 (PLP)
NOOR NABI JAVAID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION
| Citation | 1997SCMR 19 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | NOOR NABI JAVAID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997SCMR 19 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997SCMR 19 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997SCMR 19 (PLP) (NOOR NABI JAVAID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23‑6‑1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Lahore, passed in Appeal No. 141(L) of 1993). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑Claim for salary for period before reinstatement‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Service Tribunal upholding order to dismissal‑‑‑Civil servant was, however, granted relief by Supreme Court and he was re‑instated in service‑‑‑Civil servant's claim for the salary during the time he remained dismissed‑‑‑Service Tribunal refused to grant relief to civil servant with regard to his claim for past salary‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Question of payment of salary for the period in question, would have to be determined by Competent Authority under relevant Rules‑‑‑Supreme Court directed Authority to finalize the question of payment of salary for the relevant period in accordance wit law‑‑‑Leave to appeal was, however, refused in circumstances. Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1991 Appeal No. 205(L) of 1987 (New Appea No. 367(R) of 1989 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1991 Appeal No. 205(L) of 1987 (New Appea No. 367(R) of 1989 ref. Sardar Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1995. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 25‑5‑1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Lahore hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, passed in Appeal No. 141(L) of 1993 file by the petitioner for non‑payment of salary for the period commencing from 17‑2‑1987 till the resumption of duty by him on 1‑12‑1992 pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 1‑7‑1992 in Civil Appeal P. No.18 of 1991(Ch Noor Nabi Javaid v. I.A. and 2 others), dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was dismissed from service by respondent No. .l on 11‑2‑1987. The petitioner filed Appeal No.205(L) of 1987 ' (New Appeal No.367(R)/89) against the above dismissal, but the same was dismissed by a judgment dated 23‑6‑1990. Against the above judgment aforesaid, civil appeal was filed with the leave of this Court, which was allowed as follows through the judgment dated 1‑7‑1992:‑‑ "Consequently, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Federal Service Tribunal as well as that of the respondents regarding dismissal of the appellant and order fresh inquiry into the charges levelled against the appellant."
3. It appears that the department had commenced fresh enquiry against the petitioner. However he claimed his salary, for the abovementioned period from 17‑2‑1987 to 1‑12‑1992, which was not paid. Thereupon, he filed the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment. The petitioner has therefore, filed the present petition for leave to ' appeal.
4. In support of the above petition, Sardar Muhammad Akram, learned ASC appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has been ... exonerated by the enquiry officer in the above fresh enquiry and submitted his report on 18‑11‑1993 and, therefore, in any case, respondent No. l is not justified to withhold the payment of the salary for the above period.
5. The question of payment of salary for the aforesaid period will have to be determined by the competent authority under the relevant rules. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant leave to appeal. However we would like to observe that respondent No. 1 should finalize the above matter including the question, as to whether the petitioner is to be paid the salary for the above period, in accordance with law. Leave is refused with the above observation. A.A./N‑422/S Leave refused.