PLC(CS) 1992

1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

GHULAM ZUHRA Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (GIRLS), HYDERABAD and 3 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal Sindh
Decided Date
Appeal No. 24/91, decided on 30th December, 1991.
Honorable Judges
Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and Ghulam Mujadid Isran, Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal Sindh
Bench Members Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and Ghulam Mujadid Isran, Member
Parties GHULAM ZUHRA Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (GIRLS), HYDERABAD and 3 others
Primary Law Civil service
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and Ghulam Mujadid Isran, Member.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM ZUHRA Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (GIRLS), HYDERABAD and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil service

Representation

  • Abdus Sattar Mughal for Appellant.
  • Hayat Qureshi for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 28th October, 1991.

Headnotes / Summary

Removal from service

Validity

Civil servant having been transferred from "S" to "H" reported for duty at "H" and her duty report was duly entered in the inward register, but no posting orders were given to her

Civil servant applied for long extraordinary leave but the same was refused for the reason that no posting order had been issued

Civil servant was ultimately served with show-cause notice alleging therein that she did not report for duty but continued to remain absent

Authority after considering civil servant's reply, awarded the penalty of removal from service

Civil servant having reported for duty it was the duty of Authority to have given her posting orders either immediately after submission of her duty report or after expiry of the alleged extraordinary leave

Posting orders having never been issued, entire blame of civil servant's unauthorized absence from duty could not be laid at her doorsteps

Civil servant's failure to have approached legal forums for the desired relief, would not by itself be enough to deprive her of her right to employment

Order of removal from service was set aside

Civil servant on reinstatement would not be entitled to claim any arrears of salary etc. for the period, she had not rendered any service.

Judgment & Decree

DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (GIRLS), HYDERABAD and 3 others Appeal No. 24/91, decided on 30th December, 1991.

Removal from service

Validity

Civil servant having been transferred from "S" to "H" reported for duty at "H" and her duty report was duly entered in the inward register, but no posting orders were given to her

Civil servant applied for long extraordinary leave but the same was refused for the reason that no posting order had been issued

Civil servant was ultimately served with show-cause notice alleging therein that she did not report for duty but continued to remain absent

Authority after considering civil servant's reply, awarded the penalty of removal from service

Civil servant having reported for duty it was the duty of Authority to have given her posting orders either immediately after submission of her duty report or after expiry of the alleged extraordinary leave

Posting orders having never been issued, entire blame of civil servant's unauthorized absence from duty could not be laid at her doorsteps

Civil servant's failure to have approached legal forums for the desired relief, would not by itself be enough to deprive her of her right to employment

Order of removal from service was set aside

Civil servant on reinstatement would not be entitled to claim any arrears of salary etc. for the period, she had not rendered any service. Abdus Sattar Mughal for Appellant. Hayat Qureshi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1991.