1993 PLP 1692(1) (SCMR)
Rao SHAMSHER ALI KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1692(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Ian and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | Rao SHAMSHER ALI KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1692(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1692(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Ian and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1692(1) (SCMR) (Rao SHAMSHER ALI KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment and order of this Court, dated 14th of May, 1991 passed in C.A. No. 452/1986). ‑‑‑‑R. 8(4), Expln. III‑‑‑Promotion and seniority of civil servants were two different matters‑‑‑Explanation III to R. 8(4), Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, itself envisages a situation when a junior officer could be promoted prior to the one senior to him‑‑‑Protection afforded to senior officers by Explanation III to R. 8(4) Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions) of Service Rules, 1974, should not have been denied to those who were senior to the applicants.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑Promotion and seniority are two different matters. Explanation III to rule 8(4) itself envisages a situation when a junior officer has been promoted prior to one who is senior to him. I see no reason why the protection afforded to the senior officer by the explanation ought to have been denied to those were senior to the applicants in these various applications. No case for suo motu review has been made out. AA./S‑758/S Review dismissed.