1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Railways and another Versus RAILWAY EMPLOYEES UNION, CBA, CARRIAGE FACTORY, ISLAMABAD through its President and others
| Citation | 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Railways and another Versus RAILWAY EMPLOYEES UNION, CBA, CARRIAGE FACTORY, ISLAMABAD through its President and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 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 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Railways and another Versus RAILWAY EMPLOYEES UNION, CBA, CARRIAGE FACTORY, ISLAMABAD through its President and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mansoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14‑7‑1994 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in C.M. No. 1059/94 in W.P. No. 550 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Railway employees entitlement to claim Secretariat Allowance like many other employees to whom such benefit had been provided by the Government‑‑‑High Court passed interim order directing Authority to give Secretariat Allowance at specific rate from specific date‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Impugned order of High Court being interim order, Supreme Court declined to interfere therewith‑‑‑Supreme Court observed that Government if so advised, could move application to High Court for final disposal of Constitutional petition at an early date and High Court in view of urgency of matter involving financial burden on exchequer would accede to prayer of early disposal of Constitutional petition, if such prayer was made‑‑‑Leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Date, of hearing: 13th February, 1995.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order dated 14‑7‑1994 passed by the Lahore High Court whereby the petitioners were directed to pay Secretariat Allowance at the rate of 20% with effect from 1‑7‑1994 to the respondents subject to certain conditions mentioned in that order.
2. The respondents invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No. 550 of 1994 claiming that they are entitled to 20% Secretariat Allowance like many other employees to whom that benefit had been provided by the petitioners.
3. The learned Judges, after hearing learned counsel for the parties on 14‑7‑1994, passed an interim order, the operative part whereof is reproduced hereunder:‑ "The respondents are directed to give Secretariat Allowance at the rate of 20% from the 1st of July, 1994/current month subject to condition that in case the Court finally comes to conclusion that the applicants/petitioners are not entitled to payment of Secretariat Allowance, the same will be recovered from them. While parting with this matter it is made absolutely clear that if the petitioners choose to opt for new scales within the terms of Office Memo dated 15‑6‑1994, they shall not be entitled to get the benefit of 10% Secretariat Allowance and similarly the respondent/Federal Government shall not be precluded by this order to determine the option of the petitioners if given in consonance with the Office Memo dated 15‑6‑1994."
4. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for Caveators raised preliminary objection that this petition is barred by 6 days and pointed out that no reasonable explanation for condonation of delay has been mentioned in the application. On merits, he stated that the impugned order is only an interlocutory order, the writ petition is still pending and this petition merits dismissal.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned interim order. The petitioner, if so advised, may move an application in the High Court for final disposal of the writ petition at an early date. We are confident that in view of the urgency of the matter involved financial burden on the exchequer the High Court would accede to the prayer of the petitioners if made for expeditious disposal of the writ petition. Subject to the observations made above this petition is dismissed and A leave refused. AA./F‑344/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.