2019 PLP 1973 (SCMR)
Dr. ZULFIQAR AHMED MALIK — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division, Chairman FBR Islamabad and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1973 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Yahya Afridi, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. ZULFIQAR AHMED MALIK — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division, Chairman FBR Islamabad and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1973 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1973 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Yahya Afridi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1973 (SCMR) (Dr. ZULFIQAR AHMED MALIK — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division, Chairman FBR Islamabad and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood Ahmed Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 23.05.2019, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 543(R)CS/2019)
R. 12A
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)
Alteration in the date of birth of a civil servant
Applicability of R. 12A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973
Substantial question of law in terms of Art.212(3) of the Constitution
Scope
Appellant impugned order of Service Tribunal whereby his petition seeking change of his date of birth was dismissed
Contention of appellant, inter alia, was that R. 12A of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 could not be applied to the matter of his date of birth as doing so would be applying the same retrospectively
Question of retrospective applicability of R. 12A of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 was not germane to the matter as the said Rule was made when appellant was already in service and he could not claim any vested right in Rules which were alterable by the Government and against which there was no embargo
Supreme Court observed that no substantial question of law of public importance in terms of Art. 212(3) of the Constitution was made out and leave to appeal was therefore refused. Water and Power Development Authority v. Irtiqa Rasool Hashmi and another 1987 SCMR 359 rel.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMED, J.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's case before the Federal Service Tribunal was that of a change of his date of birth from 01.06.1959 to 8.12.1960. The Tribunal after hearing the petitioner has passed the impugned judgment dated 23.05.2019, by which the Service Appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel has contended that Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, was inserted in the Rules on 31.07.2000 and therefore, could not have retrospective effect and in this respect has relied upon the case of Water and Power Development Authority v. Irtiqa Rasool Hashmi and another (1987 SCMR 359). The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has dealt with the matter quite extensively with all supporting case law and then has come to the conclusion by which the service appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The question of application of retrospectivity to Rule 12(2) is not germane to the case in hand for that such rule was made when the petitioner was in service and the petitioner cannot claim any vested right in rules which are alterable by the government, against which there is no embargo. The petitioner himself has not challenged the vires of Rule 12A and thus also he cannot be given benefit of his claim. No substantial question of law of public importance in terms of 212(3) of the Constitution is made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused. KMZ/Z-3/SC Petition allowed.