1970 PLP 91 (SCMR)
ATA MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER - Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 91 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ATA MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER - Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 91 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 91 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 91 (SCMR) (ATA MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER - Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Ismail Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by. S. Wajid Hussain Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 3rd October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 24th May 1967, in Writ Petition No. 1003 of 1966). Government servant-Reversion from officiating post-Does not amount to reduction in rank.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑Choudhury Ata Mohammad, the petitioner in this case, made a grievance of the fact in a Writ Petition before the High Court, that he had been reverted from the post of Senior Auditor, in which capacity he was officiating, by Government, unjustly. The petition failed and he seeks special leave to appeal. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that reversion from an officiating appointment does not amount to reduction in rank. Mr. M. Ismail Bhatti acknowledges this to be correct, but argues that there are special features in the present case which show that Government was unwilling to pass the order of reversion, if left to itself. He contends that there was the compulsive force of the Public Service Commission behind the order. This position is untenable as the Commission clearly gives advice to Government, but cannot dictate to Government what orders it should pass. The impugned order was passed by Government itself and in consequence of the consistent view held by this Court that such reversions do not attract the protective provisions of the Consti tution, it must be found that the Writ Petition of Ata Mohammad was misconceived. The petition for special leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave refused.