1994 PLP 2028 (SCMR)
Pakistan, Islamabad‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RAFIQUE INAYAT MIRZA, SECRETARY, MINISTRY
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2028 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry |
| Parties | Pakistan, Islamabad‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RAFIQUE INAYAT MIRZA, SECRETARY, MINISTRY |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2028 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2028 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2028 (SCMR) (Pakistan, Islamabad‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RAFIQUE INAYAT MIRZA, SECRETARY, MINISTRY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Maqbool Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th November, 1993.
- We have heard Sh. Maqbool Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from `the judgment dated 8‑3‑1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 328(R) of 1985). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Car maintenance allowance‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Service Tribunal on consideration of factual and legal aspects of the case had come to conclusion that civil servant was entitled to specified amount per month as car maintenance allowance for the claimed period (six months)‑‑‑No legal error in the judgment of Service Tribunal was pointed out‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ISLAMABAD and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents Civil Petition No. 278 of 1993, decided on 8th November, 1993. (On appeal from `the judgment dated 8‑3‑1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 328(R) of 1985). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Car maintenance allowance‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Service Tribunal on consideration of factual and legal aspects of the case had come to conclusion that civil servant was entitled to specified amount per month as car maintenance allowance for the claimed period (six months)‑‑‑No legal error in the judgment of Service Tribunal was pointed out‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Sh. Maqbool Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 8th November, 1993. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Federation of Pakistan seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 8‑3‑1993, whereby the appeal filed by Rafique Inayat Mirza, respondent No. 1 herein, was accepted and the Establishment Division was directed to pay the respondent ‑No. 1 Rs.2,000 p.m. as car maintenance allowance for six months from January, 1985 to June, 1985. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Officer on Special Duty (OSD) on 18‑6‑1984 is the Establishment Division and remained as such till 1‑7‑1985, where after he was posted as Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development. He claimed free use of staff car for official as well as private use under the relevant rules but his request was not acceded to as he was not held to be an `Entitled Officer'. He filed appeal before the President on 12‑6‑1985 but having received no reply within the prescribed period, an appeal was filed before the Federal Service Tribunal by him. We have heard Sh. Maqbool Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case. The learned Service Tribunal on consideration of the factual and legal aspect of the case has come to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to Rs.2,000 per month as car maintenance allowance for six months from January, 1985 to June, 1985. We do not find any legal error in the impugned judgment and, accordingly, dismiss the instant petition and refuse leave to appeal. A.A./F‑294/S Leave refused