P L D 1981 Lahore 444 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SAFDAR-Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, ARMY EDUCATION ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1981 Lahore 444 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAFDAR-Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, ARMY EDUCATION ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (19'73) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1981 Lahore 444 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (19'73) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1981 Lahore 444 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1981 Lahore 444 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SAFDAR-Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, ARMY EDUCATION ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199-Writ petition-Competency-Contention that notwithstanding an appeal being competent before Service Tribunal, petitioner having teen retired mala fide, writ petition competent-Held, besides tenuous basis of allegation of mala fides, matter being appealable and determinable by production of evidence on facts and law alternate remedy adequate, hence writ petition not competent, in circumstances. Federation of Pakistan through The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan etc. P L h .1974 S C 151 ref. 'Shahid Hussain Kadri for Potitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner was retired from service under the provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1973 on 8-4-1980 w. e. f. 9-11-1979. He filed this Constitutional Petition on 24-4-1980 contending, inter alia, that he could not be retired with retrospective, effect. On 26-I-1980 a report was called for from the respondent authority. The latter withdrew the earlier order dated 8-4-1980 and passed another order dated 28-4-1930 probably becoming aware of the filing of the writ petition by amending the previous order dated 8-4-1980 and making the retirement prospective from 28-4-1980. The petition has come up for hearing today.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that notwithstanding that an appeal could be filed before the Service Tribunal this petition is competent because the petitioner has been retired mala fide. He has relied on Federation of Pakistan through The Secretary, Establishment Division Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan etc. (PLD 1974 SC 151).
3. Besides the tenuous basis of the allegation of mala fide, the matter which is appealable, where it cart be determined by production of evidence on facts and law, and the alternate remedy being adequate, the writ petition is not competent in the circumstances of the case.
4. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in this petition and the case is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.