1984 PLP 1233 (SCMR)
SUBHANUDDIN — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, G.H.Q., RAWALPINDI — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1233 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art. 212(3)--Service Tribunal Act (LXX of 1973), S.4--Civil Services --Appeal to Tribunal Limitation--Petitioner unable to show that- point regarding limitation resulting in dismissal of his appeal by Tribunal was incorrect--No reason found to interfere with order of Tribunal--Leave to appeal refused.--Civil services. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C.J. and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, J |
| Parties | SUBHANUDDIN — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, G.H.Q., RAWALPINDI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1233 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1233 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art. 212(3)--Service Tribunal Act (LXX of 1973), S.4--Civil Services --Appeal to Tribunal Limitation--Petitioner unable to show that- point regarding limitation resulting in dismissal of his appeal by Tribunal was incorrect--No reason found to interfere with order of Tribunal--Leave to appeal refused.--Civil services. bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C.J. and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1233 (SCMR) (SUBHANUDDIN — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, G.H.Q., RAWALPINDI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 24-8-1983 passed in Appeal No.165 (R) of 1981).
Art. 212(3)--Service Tribunal Act (LXX of 1973), S.4--Civil Services --Appeal to Tribunal Limitation--Petitioner unable to show that- point regarding limitation resulting in dismissal of his appeal by Tribunal was incorrect--No reason found to interfere with order of Tribunal--Leave to appeal refused.--[Civil services]. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1984. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑ This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, dated 24th August, 1983 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. The petitioner was serving as Stenographer in E.M.E. Workshop since 1st December, 1962, having joined Government service w.e.f. 28‑1‑1946. At that time there were two posts of stenographers in the E.M.E. Workshop but in 1969 tire number was increased to three and the petitioner being the senior most, claimed selection grade as provided under Army Instructions Pakistan No.143/49. The claim for selection grade was not granted to him on the ground that on the publication of the new pay‑scales on 1‑12‑1962 the Army Instructions issued in 1963 did not mention of the pay‑scales or selection‑grade stenographers.
3. The petitioner made a representation on 25‑3‑1981 to the Ministry of Defence who, according to the petitioner, did not reply but a reply was received by him from the G.H.Q. that the petitioner's case was being considered by the Ministry of Defence. The petitioner waited for a reply for more than 90 days as required by law but nothing was heard and, therefore, he moved the Federal Service Tribunal on 2‑9‑1981 for adjudication of the dispute. The learned Tribunal found that the petitioner's case was unassailable and the Department's attitude was not logical. The appeal was, however, dismissed on the ground of limitation.
4. Petitioner was heard in person but he has not been able to show that the point regarding the limitation resulting in the dismissal of his appeal by the Service Tribunal was incorrect. As a matter of fact the order of the Ministry of Defence was communicated to the petitioner on 14‑3‑1981 which was impugned before the Tribunal. He should have preferred his appeal before the learned Tribunal within 30 days of the receipt of the said order. He failed to do so and filed the appeal as late as on 2‑9‑1981. Moreover, no application for the condona tion of delay was filed by him. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Service Tribunal. Leave refused. Petition dismissed. S. Q. Leave refused.