1998 PLP 262 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR SHAIFTA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Caveators
| Citation | 1998 PLP 262 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR SHAIFTA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Caveators |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 262 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 262 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 262 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR SHAIFTA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Caveators). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court with C.M. Lateef, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 9th December, 1996.
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court with C.M. Lateef, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Asghar Hameed, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Caveators.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23‑10‑1996; passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.890 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Transfer of Civil Servant (petitioner) for period of three years on deputation‑‑‑Petitioner, after about one year was directed to report to Director of Education for his further posting‑‑‑Petitioner's appeal before Service Tribunal was rejected ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Petitioner's plea was that order repatriating him to his parent Department putting an end to his deputation was passed by Secretary Education on the directive of Chief Minister without applying his own independent mind and that order in question, was wholly arbitrary‑‑‑Contention raised by petitioner would need consideration‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention raised. Sh. Asghar Hameed, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Caveators.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
Petitioner was an Assistant Professor Government S.E. College, Bahawalpur when his services were placed at the disposal of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. According to the terms of his deputation, petitioner was to work in the Board for a period of three years, of course, "during the pleasure of the Controlling Authority of the Board Governments. He was also allowed deputation allowance at the rate of 10% of his pay. After about a year or so, Sh. Muhammad Naeem, Assistant Professor, Government Rezvia Islamia Degree College, Haroonabad was appointed as Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur vide the petitioner who was directed to report to the Director of Education, Colleges, Bahawalpur Division for his further adjustment/posting. This was vide Notification dated 14th July, 1996.
2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner after making a representation to the competent authority which was not responded preferred service appeal before the Service Tribunal making a grievance, inter. alia, that the impugned order was passed as a result of political influence exerted by the respondent and that he was not allowed to complete the tenure of his deputation without any rhyme or reason. Learned Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's appeal vide judgment dated 23-10-1996.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the order repatriating the petitioner to his parent department putting an end to his deputation was passed by the Secretary on the directive of the Chief Minister and without applying his own independent mind. The order in question, according to the learned counsel, was wholly arbitrary.
4. Contention raised by the learned counsel needs consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Interim stay order issued by a learned Judge of this Court in Chambers on 6-11-1996 shall continue in force pending the hearing of the appeal which may be fixed at an early date. A.A./M-37/S Leave granted.