2000SCMR178 (PLP)
MUMTAZ AHMED — Petitioner Versus SPEAKER, NATIONAL ASSEMBLY and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000SCMR178 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUMTAZ AHMED — Petitioner Versus SPEAKER, NATIONAL ASSEMBLY and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000SCMR178 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000SCMR178 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000SCMR178 (PLP) (MUMTAZ AHMED — Petitioner Versus SPEAKER, NATIONAL ASSEMBLY and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peiacha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.
The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 2-2-1998. The learned Tribunal though upheld the contention of the appellant on merits but dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
2. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the order reverting the petitioner to the department where he was previously employed was passed on 28-2-1997. The petitioner came to know about the above order on 28-4-1997. This order was challenged by the petitioner and two other employees of the National Assembly in Writ Petition No. 455 of 1997 before the High Court of Lahore which was disposed of on 15-5-1997. Before disposal of the writ petition the petitioner claims to: have preferred a departmental appeal on 14-5-1997 and after waiting for the statutory period prescribed under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, he preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, which according to him, was within time. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the Service Tribunals Act was amended in June, 1997 and section 2-A was added. As a result of this amendment in the Service Tribunals Act the petitioner fell within the definition of civil servant while prior to this date in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Shahid Iqbal v. Government of Pakistan (1995 SCMR 660) the' employees of the Senate and the National Assembly were not treated as civil servants. It is accordingly contended that after that amendment brought in the Service Tribunals Act in June, 1997 his appeal before a learned Service Tribunal was within time and competent.
3. The contentions raised by the learned counsel need examination and w accordingly grant leave to appeal. M.B.A./NJ-369/S Leave granted.