1989SCMR1514 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR MALIK Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN, through Secretary and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1514 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR MALIK Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN, through Secretary and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1514 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1514 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1514 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR MALIK Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN, through Secretary and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and SAnayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1Rth February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 18‑4‑82 in Appeal No.79/L/78). ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Civil service‑‑Petitioner had been absorbed in a department where he was working which meant that he had already got the relief and petition as such became infructuous‑‑Contention of the petitioner that he was not satisfied with the order of absorption because the petitioner had not been given seniority and other benefits, repelled with the observation that, petitioner if so advised might urge the points before the Authority concerned.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is barred by 11 days the delay is condoned. The petitioner has been absorbed in the Punjab Constabulary where he is working as Sub‑Inspector. This means that he has already got the relief. The petition as such becomes infructuous. Nevertheless, learned counsel submitted that he is not satisfied with the order of absorption because the petitioner has not been given the seniority and other benefits. We are not prepared to consider this request. The petitioner, if so advised, may urge these points before the Authority concerned. The petition is dismissed. M.B.A./M‑779/S Petition dismissed.