1984 PLP (C (PLC)
GHAYYOUR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus THE INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS
| Citation | 1984 PLP (C (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Member |
| Parties | GHAYYOUR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus THE INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Civil Service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (C (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP (C (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP (C (PLC) (GHAYYOUR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus THE INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masud for Appellant.
- A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑ Appeal‑Exhausting of departmental remedy‑Final order‑Re presentation of civil servant pending with departmental authority and final order not yet passed‑Civil servant, held, in first instance should exhaust departmental remedy and get final order and then if so desired come to Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Mushtaq Masud for Appellant. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. Ghayyour Hussain Shah, Sub‑Inspector Police, Sihala, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, Malik Munir Akhtar, Inspector, Lahore, Mr. Zaheer Babar Bajwa, Inspector, Silakot, Rana Munawar Ahmad, Inspector Lahore and Allan Ullah Khan, 5ub‑Ipspector, Sargodha as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the respon dent be directed to confirm the appellant as Sub‑Inspector with effect from 18th January, 1975 i.e. the date on which the appellant was entitled to be so confirmed. He has also prayed that the respondent be directed to assign this seniority as confirmed S. I. in the rank/status as such with all the consequential benefits of service.
3. I have heard the parties. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that there is no final order against which the appellant is seeking relief from this Tribunal. On the other hand it has been pointed out 5y the learned counsel for the appellant, Ch. Mushtaq Masud, that the appellant has made representations to the respondent No. I which are still pending and his case has not been finally disposed off by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. Thus he is seeking redress of his grievance from this Tribunal. He has referred to Annexure A/16, a repre sentation, dated 29th September, 1980 made through proper channel to inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore.
4. I have given my anxious thought to the above position of this case and also have perused the details given in the appeal. I find that still the final order has to be passed by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore in this case as the representation of the appellant is still pending with him. The Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, is directed to decide the representation of the appellant and pass the necessary order. the appellant can come to this Tribunal~ after receipt of the final order, if desired so. This appeal, thus, being premature, is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.