1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
RAFIQ AHMAD and 2 others Versus FARZAND ALI and 3 others
| Citation | 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hassan Khan, J |
| Parties | RAFIQ AHMAD and 2 others Versus FARZAND ALI and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 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 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hassan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (RAFIQ AHMAD and 2 others Versus FARZAND ALI and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Qadir Bakhsh for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1. 2 and 3.
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.‑G. for Respondent No. 4.
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.-G. for Respondent No. 4.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Notification, retrospective operation‑‑‑Contention by petitioner that Notification on basis of which impugned order was passed against him by Authorities could not be given retrospective effect‑‑‑Respondent Authority stated 'in its comments that said notification had not been given retrospective effect‑‑ Petitioner who was Patwari was not likely to be put out of job in preference to any other Patwari who had rendered less officiating service than petitioner, computed district‑wise subject to his retirement under the Rules‑‑‑Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the notification dated 15-7-1972, on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, cannot be given retrospective effect. The Assistant Commissioner, respondent No. 4 herein, has conceded in paragraph 9/C of the parawise comments that the notification in question has not been given retrospective effect. If that is so, the petitioner shall not be put out of job in preference to any other Patwari who has rendered a total officiating service as Patwari which is less than that of the petitioner computed district-wise subject to his retirement under the rules. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./R-281/L Petition disposed of accordingly.