1986 PLP 115 (SCMR)
Ch. NAZAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and 11 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 115 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. NAZAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and 11 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 115 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 115 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 115 (SCMR) (Ch. NAZAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and 11 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- D.M. Awan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ehsanullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th January, 1986.
- D.M. Awan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ehsanullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review of this Court's Judgment dated 30‑9‑1985 in Civil Appeals Nos. 77 and 78 of 1982). ‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI, r. 1‑‑Review‑ Interpretation of service rules in Supreme Court judgment Petitioner employee apprehending implementation by department denying him benefits which flow from such interpretation‑‑Supreme Court disallowed re‑hearing of whole matter in review and dismissed petition with observation that in implementing said Rules in accordance with interpretation afforded by Supreme Court, if any benefit accrued to petitioner or to anyone else similarly situated, same could not be denied to him unless there be any provision or principle of law. Mazhar Saeed Qureshi v. Government of the Punjab 1986 SCMR 12 and Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Secretary to Government, Punjab and 37 others 1986 S C M R 1 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks review of our judgment, dated 30-9-1985 whereby an appeal filed by him was dismissed. The grounds taken up in the review petition give an indication as if a re-hearing of the whole matter is sought. It was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a rehearing is not permissible in review. He has finally confined his submissions to the observations contained in the judgment of a connected matter, namely Mazhar Saeed Qureshi v. Government of the Punjab 1986 S C M R 12 in the penultimate paragraph to the following effect:- "If on the interpretation of Service Rules he was to obtain a benefit the effect of Service Tribunals decision is not to deprive him of it. As the questions concerning the interpretation of the rules has been dealt with by us in the connected appeals (Civil Appeals Nos. 7 and 8 of 1983), Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Secretary to Government, Punjab and 37 others 1986 S C M R 1 disposed of today we do not propose to undertake the exercise here and for the benefit of this appellant arising as it does out of a miscellaneous application." The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the dismissal of his appeal without any such indication, the department is implementing the rules as interpreted by this Court actually denying him or is likely to deny him the benefits which flow from such interpretation. In the three connected matters reported in the same volume of the reports, we had apart from dealing with the individual claim of the appellants before us also indicated the true meaning and effect of the rules applicable to Irrigation Engineers of the Punjab for their recruitment, seniority etc. In implementing those rules in accordance with the interpretation afforded by this Court if any benefit in fact accrues to the petitioner to anyone else similarly situate within the service or on his induction into service the same cannot ordinarily be denied unless there be any express provision or principle of law. We are making this clear only because the petitioner has expressed an apprehension and not because what he apprehends has already taken place. With these observations, the petition for review is rejected. M. I. Petition dismissed.