1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ANWAR MINHAS Versus THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 3 others
| Citation | 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Malik Zawwar Hussain and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR MINHAS Versus THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Malik Zawwar Hussain and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR MINHAS Versus THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hussain Awan for Appellant.
- A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Seniority‑‑Civil servant claiming seniority‑‑Challenged promotion of his junior‑‑Department published only tentative seniority list‑‑Tribunal directed issuance of final list within three months to avoid frustration.
Judgment & Decree
S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, in which he has impleaded respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 as mentioned above. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the respondents be directed to finalize his seniority and issue formal promotion order of the appellant in Grade‑18 for which he has already been cleared by the local counsel board. 3. We have heard the appellant's counsel as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the department and have examined the record carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has made grievance that appellant who had entered into local counsel service earlier than the respondents, would be entitled to be senior against them, therefore, the impugned seniority list be corrected. He has also made a grievance that injustice has been done in the case of appellant by promoting his junior despite his representation. The crux' of the case is that the appellant has claimed his seniority but the fact remains that no final seniority list has so far been issued by the department. A seniority list of 1982, which would be tentative list of all the regions, has only been so far published. But, this being a tentative seniority list a large number of objections have been received by the Department against the same. The situation, has neither been denied by the appellant nor respondents. This being the situation respondent No. 1 is directed to issue the final seniority list. For this we give him the period of three months (i.e. by 14‑3‑19841 so as to finalize the said seniority due to which a frustration has arisen amongst the civil servants. The case is disposed of accordingly. There will be no orders as to costs. M.I. Order accordingly