1989 PLP (2) (SCMR)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP (2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (2) (SCMR) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 24‑1‑1984 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Case No308/241 of 1983). ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner was serving in a private school when that was nationalised‑‑Contention of the petitioner was that in accordance with the relevant rules he was entitled to ont advance increment in the scale in which his pay was fixed; that such benefit was initially granted to him but was later illegally withdrawn and that Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal without considering the facts of his case at all‑‑Judgment of the Tribunal also showed that contention of the petitioner had substance‑‑Leave to appeal granted against the order of the Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was serving in a private school when the educational institutions were nationalised. The petitioner claims that he had a Master's degree and was drawing pay of Rs.400 when he was inducted into the government service consequent upon the nationalisation. In accordance with the relevant rules he was entitled to one advance increment in the scale in which his pay was fixed. The grievance of the petitioner is that this benefit was initially granted to him but was later illegally withdrawn. He filed an‑appeal before the Service Tribunal but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave t0 appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that while dismissing his appeal the learned Tribunal has not considered the facts of his case at all. On going through the judgment of the learned Tribunal we find substance in the contention of the petitioner. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.1,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. During the pendency of the appeal, no recovery on account of the amount already paid to him, be made. M.B.A./N‑155/S Leave granted.