2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mst. SAFIA BAN Versus EDO (EDU) and another
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SAFIA BAN Versus EDO (EDU) and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mst. SAFIA BAN Versus EDO (EDU) and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12‑5‑2003 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal in 372 of 2003). Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Premature retirement from service at civil servant's request‑‑‑Civil servant after acceptance of her request for premature retirement prayed for change of her date of retirement, so as to complete her service according to her date of birth‑‑‑Department rejected such application‑‑‑Service Tribunal dismissed appeal filed by civil servant‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant had already been retired from service‑‑‑Tribunal had not committed any illegality in dismissing appeal‑‑‑No question of public importance was involved‑‑‑ Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 8‑5‑2003, whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for quite some time and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. We are not giving the facts in detail as the same have elaborately been narrated in the impugned judgment. Admittedly the petitioner who had 33 years of service at her credit made an application to the Secretary to the Government of Punjab Education Department on 8‑3‑2002 seeking pre‑mature retirement w.e.f. 31‑5‑2002 due to her personal circumstances. Her application was accepted on 16‑5‑2002. Subsequently after the receipt of the acceptance letter she made an application on 21‑5‑2002 that her date of retirement be changed from 31‑5‑2002 to 31‑8‑2002. Against another application was given on 4‑10‑2002 wherein she prayed that she be allowed to complete her service according to her date of birth which is 12‑2‑1944. All these applications were rejected. She thereafter approached the Tribunal whereto she met the same fate.
2. We are of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing appeal as she had already been retired from service. Even otherwise no question of public importance as envisaged under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic of Republic of Pakistan is involved.
3. For what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined. S.A.K./S‑20/S Leave refused.