2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
IRSHAD MUHAMMAD SHAH Versus HESCO and another
| Citation | 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ |
| Parties | IRSHAD MUHAMMAD SHAH Versus HESCO and another |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (IRSHAD MUHAMMAD SHAH Versus HESCO and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 6-4-2010 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 1336(R) of 2009).
S.4
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)
Appeal filed by civil servant was dismissed by Service Tribunal as his departmental appeal was time barred
Service Tribunal had rightly dismissed the appeal as his departmental appeal was time barred
No irregularity or illegality was pointed out warranting interference by Supreme Court in the judgment passed by Service Tribunal
Leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Aslam v. WAPDA 2007 SCMR 513 rel. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 6-4-2010 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "The appellant was awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement from service vide order dated 10-10-2006. His departmental appeal dated 30-1-2009 was time barred. The appeal, therefore, incompetent in view of 2007 SCMR
513. Dismissed in limine."
2. Heard Irshad Muhammad Shah (In person) at length who mainly argued that major penalty could not have been imposed without having a fair, impartial and transparent departmental inquiry. It is next contended that departmental inquiry was never conducted in accordance with law but on the contrary the factual and legal aspects of the matter have been ignored without any rhyme and reason causing serious prejudice against the petitioner.
3. We have examined the above mentioned contentions in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. Admittedly the departmental appeal was barred by time which has been dismissed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal in view of the law laid down by this court in Muhammad Aslam v. WAPDA (2007 SCMR 513) which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "Besides it is well-settled in the case Anwarul Haq (supra) that if departmental appeal is not filed within the statutory period the appeal before the Tribunal would not be competent. Relevant para. is, therefore, reproduced hereinbelow:
"The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded before us that after redesignation of the post he has been performing his official functions as Assistant Executive Engineer. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that after a lapse of 18 years the relief sought by the petitioner for correction of the seniority list was time-barred. Reliance was also rightly placed by the learned Tribunal on the judgment of this Court in the case of Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik (PLD 1990 SC 951) that when an appeal before the departmental authority was time-barred, the appeal before the Tribunal was also incompetent on the account."
3. The above view was reiterated by this Court in the cases of (i) Dr. Anwar Ali Sahto and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2002 SC 101 (ii) State Bank of Pakistan v. Khyber Zaman and others 2004 SCMR 1426 and (iii) N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology v. Syed Ashfaq Hussain Shah 2006 SCMR 453". Muhammad Aslam v. WAPDA (2007 SCMR 513).
4. In the light of what has been mentioned hereinabove the petition being barred by time has rightly been dismissed by learned Service Tribunal. No irregularity or illegality could be pointed out warranting interference in the judgment impugned. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./I-8/SC Petition dismissed.