1990 PLP 1471 (SCMR)
ABDUL QAYYUM, EX‑TELEPHONE OPERATOR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEGRAPHS, SARGODHA
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1471 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL QAYYUM, EX‑TELEPHONE OPERATOR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEGRAPHS, SARGODHA |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1471 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1471 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1471 (SCMR) (ABDUL QAYYUM, EX‑TELEPHONE OPERATOR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEGRAPHS, SARGODHA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh Abdul Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 9‑4‑1985 in Appeal No.14(L) of 1983). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Appeal filed by petitioner before Tribunal was dismissed on ground of delay‑‑Petitioner having failed to give any satisfactory explanation for that delay, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑‑The petitioner appeared in person. He argued his own case. He started with the merits of his case. W e called upon him to first satisfy us on the question of limitation as the Federal Service Tribunal had dismissed his appeal on that ground. He was further told that unless and until he crossed the obstacle of limitation, it was not possible for him as well as for us to go into the merits of the case. The petitioner was unable to give any satisfactory explanation for the delay. We have‑no option but to dismiss this petition. H.B.T./A‑599/S Petition dismissed.