2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mian AURANGZEB Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others
| Citation | 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khilji Arif Hussain and Tariq Parvez, JJ |
| Parties | Mian AURANGZEB Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khilji Arif Hussain and Tariq Parvez, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mian AURANGZEB Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Iftikhar Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 8-3-2010 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No.1626(R)(CS) of 2005).
Art. 212(3)
Contention of the petitioner was that he was appointed on ad hoc basis some time in April, 1989, thereafter, the Government made a request for filling in the vacancy through Federal Public Service Commission, petitioner appeared and qualified
Question required consideration was that whether the petitioner, in the given circumstances, when he had served the department for more then twelve years should be counted to his credit
Leave to appeal was granted, inter alia, to consider the above question.
Judgment & Decree
KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.
This petition arises out of conflicting view taken by Members of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. Two Members passed the order merits dismissal, whereas, one Member has come to the conclusion that the petitioner should be given due seniority.
2. It is contended, inter alia, by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis some time in April, 1989, thereafter, the Government made a request for filing in the vacancy through Federal Public Service Commission. The petitioner appeared and duly qualified.
3. The question required consideration is that whether the petitioner in the given circumstances when he has served the respondent-department for more than twelve years should be counted to his credit.
4. Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to consider the above question. M.A.K./A-17/SC Leave granted.