1991 PLP 1764 (SCMR)
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIAC and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1764 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ |
| Parties | MAQBOOL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIAC and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1764 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1764 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1764 (SCMR) (MAQBOOL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIAC and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1990.
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 10-10-1988 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 340(R) of 1987).
Art. 212(3)
Petitioner .prayed that he should be considered for promotion with effect from date when he was transferred abroad as promotion was due from that date and there were no adverse remarks against him
Service Tribunal did not advert to that aspect of case
Point requiring examination, leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was serving in P.IA. when he was transferred to Abu Dhabi in 1982. During his posting abroad, some juniors to him were promoted. The petitioner on return from abroad joined his duty on 22‑10‑
85. The petitioner was awarded the penalty of censure on 4‑2‑
80. He made a departmental appeal against the said penalty but without any success. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondent in excluding him from consideration for promotion to higher grade on account of punishment of censure. The reply sent to the petitioner reads as hereunder:‑ "Your case for reinvestigation of suppersession has been processed for Management's consideration. We shall revert to you as and when a decision to this effect is arrived at." Thereafter the petitioner was informed that his request had been turned down. The petitioner feeling aggrieved filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal and made a prayer that the penalty of censure may be set aside and the petitioner may be ordered to be promoted with effect from August, 1982 with back benefits. Subsequently, he amended the prayer that the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion with effect from August, 1982. The learned Service Tribunal disposed of his appeal alongwith other appeals and a common judgment was delivered. It was observed that no appeal lies to the Service Tribunal for imposing minor penalty. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed only on technical ground.
2. The learned counsel has submitted that the prayer of the petitioner was that he may be considered for promotion with effect from August, 1982 when he was serving abroad and there were no adverse remarks against him. His promotion was due on that date.
3. The Service Tribunal has not adverted to this aspect of the case and this point requires examination. Leave is granted.
4. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire. H.B.T/M‑1281/S Leave granted.