2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Dr. MAZHAR IQBAL TAHIR, CMO BHU Versus PROVINCIAL COORDINATOR NATIONAL PROGRAM (FP & PHC) MUZAFFARABAD AJ&K and 4 others
| Citation | 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | High Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Munir Ahmed Chaudhary, J |
| Parties | Dr. MAZHAR IQBAL TAHIR, CMO BHU Versus PROVINCIAL COORDINATOR NATIONAL PROGRAM (FP & PHC) MUZAFFARABAD AJ&K and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Munir Ahmed Chaudhary, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Dr. MAZHAR IQBAL TAHIR, CMO BHU Versus PROVINCIAL COORDINATOR NATIONAL PROGRAM (FP & PHC) MUZAFFARABAD AJ&K and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Ayaz for Petitioner.
- Muzaffar Ali Zafar, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents.
- 3. Notices were issued to the non-petitioners to submit parawise comments but they failed to submit the same. Arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 44
Petitioner who had been handed over the charge of District Co-ordinator in addition to his present original posting as Civil Medical Officer had sought protection regarding said additional charge
Additional charge was neither an appointment nor a promotion in the eyes of Rules and Regulations
Authority which handed over the additional charge of any post to any other officer serving on his original post, could also withdraw the same order when it deemed proper
No protection could be claimed regarding additional charge of any post
Petitioner had got no locus standi to file writ petition, which was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.
This writ petition has been filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, through which, a protection has been sought regarding additional charge of District Coordinator National Program for Family Planning and Public Health District Kotli.
2. It has been stated in the writ petition that petitioner is serving as Civil Medical Officer at BHU Qamrooti District Kotli with additional charge of District Coordinator National Program for Family Planning and Public Health Kotli. It was also stated that the non-petitioners want to withdraw the notification dated 18-10-2011 regarding additional charge of District Coordinator. The petitioner prayed to issue a writ to restrain the non-petitioners to cancel the said notification.
3. Notices were issued to the non-petitioners to submit parawise comments but they failed to submit the same. Arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General.
4. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record minutely. The record reveals that the petitioner has been handed over the charge of District Coordinator for the said program in addition to his present original posting as civil medical officer. An additional charge is neither an appointment nor a promotion in the eye of Rules and Regulations. The authority which hands over the additional charge of any post to any other officer serving on his original post, can also withdraw the same order when it deems proper. No protection can be claimed regarding an additional charge of any post. If at all, the said additional charge is withdrawn by the authority and the petitioner feels aggrieved by that, he can approach the proper forum for his redressal. No civil servant can invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court regarding additional charge of any post. The nutshell of the above discussion is that the petitioner has got no locus-standi to file the instant writ petition, which is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. HBT/38/HC (AJ&K) Petition dismissed.