1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
KHURSHID AHMAD GHUMAN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR and others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | KHURSHID AHMAD GHUMAN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR and others |
| Primary Law | (e) Civil service, (b) Civil service, (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (e) Civil service, (b) Civil service, (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (d) Civil service, (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) 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: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (KHURSHID AHMAD GHUMAN Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Add1.A.-G. alongwith Muhammad Iqbal Vehniwal for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st September and 22nd October, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of- -Petitioner through Constitutional petition sought declaration that his Annual Confidential Reports which according to him were written by an incompetent Authority, be declared without lawful authority
Question whether respondent Authority who had recorded ACRs of petitioner, was competent to record the same, was a disputed question of fact, and such disputed question could not be entertained in constitutional proceedings.
Move-over
Entitlement to
Civil servant claiming move-over, had failed to show that any of employees similarly placed was granted move-over Employer (Corporation) had denied that move-over policy of Government had been adopted by the Corporation
Claim of Civil Servant with regard to move-over; was misconceived, in circumstances.
Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of-- Competent Authority after considering recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee, found petitioner employee unfit for promotion and decided not to promote him
No exception could be taken to decision of competent Authority in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Civil Servant claiming pro forma promotion with all back benefits, had failed to prove that his juniors were promoted and he was ignored
Departmental Promotion Committee had duly considered case of employee and found him unfit for promotion
Competent Authority after considering recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee, had taken decision not to promote civil servant
No exception could be taken to decision of competent Authority made in view of recommendation of the Committee.
Pay scale
Civil servant had submitted that he was entitled to NPS 14, while he was wrongly placed in NPS 11
One decade had nearly passed when civil servant was placed in NPS 11, but be took no objection to his placement in that grade when order in that respect was passed
After a decade submission of civil servant, suffered from gross laches and such laches, could not be condoned in facts and circumstances of case. Petitioner in person. M.N. Beg, Legal Adviser of Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Move-over
Entitlement to
Civil servant claiming move-over, had failed to show that any of employees similarly placed was granted move-over Employer (Corporation) had denied that move-over policy of Government had been adopted by the Corporation
Claim of Civil Servant with regard to move-over; was misconceived, in circumstances. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of-- Competent Authority after considering recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee, found petitioner employee unfit for promotion and decided not to promote him
No exception could be taken to decision of competent Authority in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. (d) Civil service
Civil Servant claiming pro forma promotion with all back benefits, had failed to prove that his juniors were promoted and he was ignored
Departmental Promotion Committee had duly considered case of employee and found him unfit for promotion
Competent Authority after considering recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee, had taken decision not to promote civil servant
No exception could be taken to decision of competent Authority made in view of recommendation of the Committee. (e) Civil service
Pay scale
Civil servant had submitted that he was entitled to NPS 14, while he was wrongly placed in NPS 11
One decade had nearly passed when civil servant was placed in NPS 11, but be took no objection to his placement in that grade when order in that respect was passed
After a decade submission of civil servant, suffered from gross laches and such laches, could not be condoned in facts and circumstances of case. Petitioner in person. Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Add1.A.-G. alongwith Muhammad Iqbal Vehniwal for Respondents. M.N. Beg, Legal Adviser of Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st September and 22nd October, 1991.