1990 PLP 1452 (SCMR)
Raja ABID HUSSAIN — Petition Versus DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SAHIWAL and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1452 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Raja ABID HUSSAIN — Petition Versus DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SAHIWAL and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1452 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1452 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1452 (SCMR) (Raja ABID HUSSAIN — Petition Versus DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SAHIWAL and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 7‑6‑1986 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, in. case No. 898/530 of 1985). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Withdrawing pre‑mature increment‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Pre‑mature increment allowed to petitioner on assumption that his appointment was by way of promotion, subsequently was withdrawn on ground that his appointment was fresh one and not "in line of promotion"‑‑‑Terms and conditions mentioned 'in letter of petitioner's appointment, leaving no room for doubt that it was a case of fresh appointment‑‑ View taken by Department as well as Tribunal that appointment of petitioner was fresh one and his increment was withdrawn on that ground, held, was not suffering from any infirmity‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner joined service as Elementary School Teacher in the National Pay Scale No.
8. By notification dated 20‑8‑1980 he was appointed as Secondary School Teacher in National Pay Scale No.
14. In the new scale his pay was fixed after allowing him one pre‑mature increment on the assumption that his appointment as Secondary School Teacher was by way of promotion. Subsequently, his pay was reduced by withdrawing the pre‑mature increment on the ground that his appointment as Secondary School Teacher was a fresh one and not "in line of promotion" of an Elementary School Teacher. He was asked to refund the excess amount he had in the meanwhile received. He preferred a departmental representation which was rejected. He filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal but that too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that the view taken by the Department as well as the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity. The letter of the petitioner's appointment as Secondary School Teacher is available on the record. The wording of the letter and the terms and conditions mentioned therein leave no room for doubt that it was a case of fresh appointment. Leave is refused. H.B.T./A‑626/S Leave refused.