1989SCMR467 (PLP)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Peitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID B.HATTI — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR467 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Peitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID B.HATTI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR467 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR467 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR467 (PLP) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Peitioner Versus ABDUL RASHID B.HATTI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz M.Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 1988.
- Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz M.Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 1-8-1987 in Appeal No.204(P) of 1985).
S.4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)--Leave to appeal granted after condoning the delay to consider questions that Tribunal had failed to appreciate that civil servant's appeal was barred under S.4 of the Act; that impugned order was not an order passed in appeal but on original representation; that even if appeal was competent same was barred by time and ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone and that the educational institution was recognised only for electrical course and not for civil mechanical etc. and civil servant not being a person qualified under the Rules could not be considered for promotion or appointment in Grade-16. Respondents in person.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition fur leave to appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 1‑8‑1987 by which respondent's appeal was allowed with the direction that he "is entitled to be granted Grade‑16 as a qualified and/or unqualified sub‑Engineer, without any reservation. Facts of the case briefly stated are that respondent joined service on 20 12‑1968 as a Surveyor under the petitioner‑Authority. At that time he had put in one year service in the Government School of Engneering, Rasool (Punjab) but had not completed the prescribed period of two years' service for Overseers‑Certificate Course. He however cleared a diploma course in Civil Engineering, from the School of Electricians, Lahore in 1973 and was appointed as Overseer (Civil) with effect from 11‑11‑1974. On 22‑2‑1984 he made an application that having completed 10 years service, he was eligible for upgradation m BPS‑
16. His request was rejected under letter dated 23‑7‑1985, and being aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal to the Service Tribunal which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 1‑8‑1987, as stated above. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, learned counsel appearing in support of E the petition submits that the Federal Service Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent's appeal was barred under section 4 of the Act as he had failed to file a departmental appeal or review against the impugned order dated 23‑7‑1985. In this behalf, learned counsel pointed out that the order dated 23‑7‑1985 was not an order passed on an appeal but on the original representation made by respondent. Learned counsel further pointed out that the Service Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that even if the appeal was competent for the sake of argument, it was barred by time and ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone. On merits of the case, learned counsel pointed out that the School for Electricians Lahore was recognised only for Electrical Course, and not for the others, namely, civil mechanical etc. and respondent not being a person qualified under the rules could not be considered for promotion or appointment in Grade‑
16. The points raised by the learned counsel deserve consideration. We, therefore, after condoning the delay grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Appeal will be heard on the present record but the appellant is directed to file all the necessary documents. The operation of the impugned order is stayed till appeal is decided. MA.K./W‑40/S Leave granted.