1995SCMR915 (PLP)
Sheikh MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus The CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR915 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Sheikh MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus The CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR915 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR915 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR915 (PLP) (Sheikh MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus The CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M.Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 1994:
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 21‑1‑1993 passed in Appeal No. 297‑L/1992). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R.3‑‑‑Compromise before High Court in Constitutional petition ‑‑‑Effect‑‑ Termination of service challenged by petitioner before High Court and as a result of compromise petitioner was allowed to join his original post (not the one from which he was terminated) as a result whereof he withdrew his Constitutional petition‑‑‑Petitioner's challenge to termination of his service before Service Tribunal in fresh round of litigation remained unsuccessful‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Petitioner had challenged the order of termination in Constitutional petition and had agreed to join his original post and had withdrawn his Constitutional petition‑‑‑Petitioner having acted upon said arrangement, could not challenge the order of termination in fresh litigation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Cashier on 29‑5‑1986. On 1‑6‑1989 he was appointed Revenue Officer on one year's probation period. On 15‑5‑1991 his services were dispensed with immediate effect. The petitioner challenged this order in a Constitution Petition and it seems that the parties compromised. WAPDA offered the petitioner to join as a Cashier and to withdraw the petition. The petition was accordingly withdrawn and the petitioner continued his service as a Cashier. The petitioner seems to have agitated the question again challenging the termination of service on the ground that the termination was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment as he had completed the period of probation and clause 2(ii) of the letter of appointment could not be invoked. The learned Members of the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order of termination was illegal and the respondents had no authority to pass such an order. The petitioner had challenged the order in the Constitution Petition and agreed to join as a Cashier and to withdraw his petition. Now having acted upon the said arrangement, he cannot challenge the order of termination. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. AA./M‑2107/S Leave refused.