1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through the Secretary, Government of Punjab Forestry,
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and, Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Syed GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through the Secretary, Government of Punjab Forestry, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and, Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through the Secretary, Government of Punjab Forestry,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Atta-ur-Rehman Sheikh with Muhammad Amin Javed for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Rashid Malik for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No. 1456 of 1990, heard on 8th December, 1991. (a) Civil service
Civil servant who was retired compulsorily from service by Authority, moved a Revision petition before Review Board duly constituted against his compulsory retirement, but Review Board without affording civil servant opportunity of hearing, upheld order of Authority
Order passed by Review Board was coram non judice inasmuch as it could not affect legal rights of civil servant in any manner for the reason that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. (b) Civil service
Civil servant who was compulsorily retired from service, was finally ordered to be reinstated by. Authorities including Chief Minister of the Province
Departmental Authorities, had not complied with orders of reinstating civil servant passed by competent Authorities without any legal justification and case of civil servant for his reinstatement, remained unattended before Departmental Authorities for about three years despite clear orders of Chief Minister
Departmental Authorities failed to prove that orders reinstating civil servant subsequently was recalled
Serious omission was committed by Departmental Authorities in circumstances because valuable rights of civil servant were involved and law and justice demanded for expeditious disposal of his case at departmental level
Civil servant who was validly reinstated in service by competent Authorities, should be deemed to be in service for all intents and purposes-- Civil servant, who in the meantime admittedly had reached age of superannuation, was held to be entitled to all financial benefits accrued to him under law. Atta-ur-Rehman Sheikh with Muhammad Amin Javed for Petitioner. Muhammad Rashid Malik for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1991.