SCMR 1990

1990 PLP 854 (SCMR)

HAFIZ SABAHUDDIN JAMY‑‑Petitioner Versus OBAIDUR REHMAN KHAN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition Appeal No.426‑R of 1988, decided on 13th February, 1990.
Honorable Judges
S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1990 PLP 854 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry JJ
Parties HAFIZ SABAHUDDIN JAMY‑‑Petitioner Versus OBAIDUR REHMAN KHAN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 854 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 854 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 854 (SCMR) (HAFIZ SABAHUDDIN JAMY‑‑Petitioner Versus OBAIDUR REHMAN KHAN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the judgment and order dated 25‑9‑1988 of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.1(R)/87‑303(L)/86. ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Establishment Code, Cl. B, para. (b)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether Service Tribunal had erred in holding that the petitioner's case was not covered by Cl. B, para.(b) of Establishment Code; and whether the principle of law stated in M. Iqbal Junejo's case reported as PLD 1987 SC 247, did not apply to the case of petitioner. M. Iqbal Junejo's case P L D 1987 S C 247 ref.

Judgment & Decree

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th February, 1990. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑The petitioner was senior to respondents 1 to

4. His seniority was maintained in Grades 17, 18 and 19 in the Gradation List published by the Government of Pakistan upto January, 1976. The petitioner was dismissed from service from 5‑11‑1976. However, he was reinstated in service with all fringe benefits of service and salary and his period of absence was treated as on duty and the arrears of his pay were duly paid to him, vide notifications date 25‑8‑1977 and 6‑12‑1977. During the petitioner's aforesaid absence from service, the respondents 1 to 4 were promoted to Grade

20. The petitioner was promoted in Grade 20 in April 1978. However, his name was shown below the respondents. The petitioner preferred a representation before the Government. The Government turned down the representation of the petitioner maintaining the same position while promoting the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 in Grade

21. The petitioner approached the Federal Service Tribunal for placing him senior to the respondents 1 to

4. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the petitioner's case is not covered by clause B of Para.(b) at page 154 of Establishment Code which reads as hereunder:‑‑ "(b) When in a single reference, the Selection Board/DPC are asked to recommend more than one persons and the recommendation of the Selection Board/DPC is held up in respect of one or more such persons for want of complete papers etc., or for reasons beyond the control of the persons concerned, the recommendation of the Selection Board/DPC in respect of such persons when made subsequently will be deemed to have been made on the date when the recommendation in respect of ‑the original batch was made."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that M. Iqbal Junejo's case cited as PLD 1987 SC 247 does not apply to the case of the petitioner. The point raised by the learned counsel requires examination. Leave is granted.

4. The appeal to be prepared on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire. AA./S‑512/S Leave granted.