1995SCMR697 (PLP)
JUNAID AHMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR697 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | JUNAID AHMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)---‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR697 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)---‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR697 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR697 (PLP) (JUNAID AHMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Chaudhary Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th March, 1994.
- Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the absence of the petitioner and his counsel to prosecute the appeal which was dismissed in default as also the application for restoration of the petition dismissed in default, was not intentional. We have, however, noticed that the petitioner has been negligent in prosecuting the appeal as well as the application for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 1‑2‑1992, in Appeal No. 226 of 1990). ‑‑‑S. 4..‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Claim of seniority‑‑‑ Dismissal of appeal before Tribunal for non prosecution as well as application for its restoration‑‑‑Negligence.‑‑Effect.‑‑Civil servant's appeal before Service Tribunal was dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Civil servant's application for restoration of appeal was also dismissed for non‑prosecution so also his application for restoration of his application (for restoration of appeal)‑‑‑Civil servant had been negligent in prosecuting the appeal as also his application for restoration of appeal‑‑‑No substantial question of public importance was involved so as to attract jurisdiction of Supreme Court for interference in the matter‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J: ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from order dated 1‑2‑1992 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, passed in Appeal No. 226/1990. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Junior Clerk, in 1982, in the office of the Executive Engineer, Highway Division, Sargodha, on regular basis, whereas the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 were appointed on ad hoc basis. In the seniority list issued by the Superintendent Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha, on 18‑10‑1985, the petitioner was shown junior to respondents Nos. 3 to
8. He made representation to the departmental authority but of no avail. Ultimately .he filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was dismissed on 6‑10‑1990, for non prosecution. The petitioner moved application for restoration of the appeal on 4‑11‑1990, but that too was dismissed on 17‑3‑1991, for non‑prosecution. Thereafter he filed an application for restoration of that petition which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 1‑2‑1992. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the absence of the petitioner and his counsel to prosecute the appeal which was dismissed in default as also the application for restoration of the petition dismissed in default, was not intentional. We have, however, noticed that the petitioner has been negligent in prosecuting the appeal as well as the application for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default. In our view, no substantial question of public importance is involved, in this case so as to strict the jurisdiction of this Court for interference in the matter. Resultantly, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss it. A.A./J‑112/S Leave refused.