1990 PLP 988 (SCMR)
Ch. MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ AHMAD CHEEMA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Forestry and Wildlife Department‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 988 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ AHMAD CHEEMA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Forestry and Wildlife Department‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 988 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 988 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 988 (SCMR) (Ch. MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ AHMAD CHEEMA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Forestry and Wildlife Department‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th July, 1989.
- 3. Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner urged that the earlier order passed by the Authority retiring the Petitioner was a nullity because it was passed by an Officer who was not competent to pass such an order. It is on that ground that he wanted to revive the controversy which otherwise appears to be settled by an inter partes decision of the Service Tribunal dated 13‑12‑1982.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 9‑4‑1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 960/S of 1986). ‑‑‑‑Arts. 212(3) & 199‑‑‑‑Civil servant's retirement on completion of 25 years' service‑‑‑Civil servant's appeal to Service Tribunal had been dismissed‑‑‑Civil servant claimed to have filed petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, but the same, as per his allegation, was not entertained on account of bar imposed under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981‑‑‑Civil servant started second round, after lifting of Martial Law, by filing a Constitutional petition in High Court which was dismissed‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Contention raised was that earlier order passed by Authority retiring civil servant was a nullity because of having been passed by an officer who was not competent to pass such an order‑‑ Held: Ground raised on behalf of petitioner as to the incompetence of Authority passing the order of retirement was available to petitioner even within the framework of Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, because completion of twenty‑five years' service and an order by the competent authority were sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction and for dealing with the officer under those powers‑‑‑Such matter should have been raised before Service Tribunal and should have been brought to Supreme Court under Art. 212(3) of the Constitution‑‑‑That having not been done, inter partes decision of Service Tribunal precluded the revival of proceedings in constitutional jurisdiction or otherwise‑‑‑No case having been made out, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th July, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The Petitioner, a civil servant retired on attaining the age of twenty‑five years on 5‑6‑1980, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9‑4‑1986 whereby his challenge for the second time to the retirement order was not entertained.
2. In the first round on having been retired the Petitioner had appealed to the Service Tribunal which had dismissed his appeal on 13‑12‑1982. He claims to have filed a petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court but the same, according to him, was not entertained on account of the bar imposed under the Provisional Constitution Order. After the lifting of the Martial Law, on 22‑2‑1986 he started the second round by filing a Constitution Petition in the High Court which has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned Order.
3. Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner urged that the earlier order passed by the Authority retiring the Petitioner was a nullity because it was passed by an Officer who was not competent to pass such an order. It is on that ground that he wanted to revive the controversy which otherwise appears to be settled by an inter partes decision of the Service Tribunal dated 13‑12‑1982.
4. The ground that the learned counsel for the Petitioner has now taken namely, the incompetence of the authority passing the order of retirement was available to the Petitioner even within the framework of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 because the completion of twenty‑five years service and an order by the competent authority were sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction and for dealing with the officer under those powers. This matter should have been raised before the Tribunal and should have been brought to this Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. That having not been done, the inter partes decision of the Service Tribunal dated 13‑12‑1982 precludes the revival of the proceedings in the constitutional jurisdiction or otherwise. No case is made out for leave to appeal and it is refused. AA./M‑1133/S Leave refused.