1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ILYAS ANSARI Versus COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND
| Citation | 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Mr. Justice Shah Abdur Rashid, Chairman and Brig. (Retd.), Abdur Rashid, Member |
| Parties | ILYAS ANSARI Versus COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Mr. Justice Shah Abdur Rashid, Chairman and Brig. (Retd.), Abdur Rashid, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ILYAS ANSARI Versus COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Rehmat Ali for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 13 (ii) read with Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4 and Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art., 13 (1) Retirement after completion of 25 years service qualifying for pension‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑Barred‑No reasons required for passing retirement order‑Reasons if given though not justified‑No ground for interference by Tribunal‑‑Impugned order passed by competent authority‑No mala fide plea that it was a colourable exercise of powers because there were certain allegations against appellant and as such instead of proceeding under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 resort had been taken to invoke provisions of S. 13 (ii) of Civil Servants Act, 1973‑Such plea in circumstances, held, not sufficient for inter ference by Service Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).‑This is an appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973), from order, dated 3rd June, 1982, whereby the appellant was retired under section 13 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973). In view of the bar placed by Article 13 (1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings calling in question such an order. However, on the language of Article 13 (t) ibid, we can examine the question whether the civil servant was retired after he had completed 25 years service qualifying for pension and retiring benefits, and also whether the order of retirement had been made by the competent authority. To this can be added a third question, namely, that of mala fide, if raised by the appellant, because it has been held in numerous cases by the Supreme Court itself that a mala fide order is a nullity, and shall be deemed to have never been passed. In the present case, it is not denied that the retirement was made by the competent authority and that the appellant had rendered 25 years' qualifying service for pension and other retiring benefits. The plea of mala fide has not been raised. The appellant's whole case appears to be that the present is a case of colourable exercise of jurisdiction, inasmuch as, there were certain allegations against the appellant and that instead of proceeding against him under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, resort had been taken to invoke the provisions of section 13 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973). We are afraid, this is not the ground which can give us jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, because for retiring a person, the reasons need not be given and even if the reasons, if given, are not justified, the bar of Article 13 (1) ibid stands. The result is that the appeal fails, and we dismiss it for want of jurisdiction, in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.