1990 PLP 533 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHABBIR‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 18 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 533 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHABBIR‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 18 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 533 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 533 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 533 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHABBIR‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 18 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 24‑5‑1984 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, in Appeal No.288/275 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.11‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑ Civil servant's appeal before Service Tribunal was accepted on the plea that even though he had been serving the Provincial Government between the dates mentioned in S.11‑A, he was to be treated as a fresh appointee with effect from 3‑9‑1977, and thus he was not one of those persons to whom S‑11‑A applied‑‑ Civil servant was thus reinstated in service‑‑‑Civil servant's appeal, before Supreme Court related to his seniority on the assertion that he was a regular appointee under the Government with effect from 29‑9‑1975, which claim already stood rejected by the Service Tribunal‑‑‑Civil servant's claim in earlier appeal was that he was a fresh appointee of Government with effect from 3‑9‑1977 and it was on basis of that assertion that he was able to avoid application of S.11‑A to him‑‑‑Civil servant therefore could not claim that for the purpose of seniority he should be treated as regular appointee from an anterior date‑‑‑Service Tribunal was justified in rejecting civil servant's appeal‑‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th March, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑By an order dated 2‑6‑1979 the petitioner was removed from service under Section 11‑A of the Punjab Service Act, 1974. This Section read as follows:‑ "Notwithstanding anything contained in his terms and conditions of service, a civil servant appointed or promoted during the period from the first day of January, 1972 to the fifth day of July, 1977, may be removed from service or reverted to his lower post, without notice, by the Governor of the Punjab or a person authorised by him in this behalf on such date as the Governor of the Punjab or, as the case may be, the person so authorised, may in public interest, direct." The petitioner challenged this order in appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. His case was that even though he had ,been serving the Provincial Government between the date mentioned in the Section, he was to be treated as a fresh appointee with effect from 3‑9‑1977. Consequently, he was not one of those persons to whom the section 11‑A applied. His contention was accepted and a direction with regard to his reinstatement in service was given.
2. The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to the seniority of the petitioner. His claim to seniority is founded on the assertion that he was a regular appointee under the Government with effect from 29‑9‑1975. The Punjab Service Tribunal has rejected his claim. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. 3.As already noticed the petitioner's case in the earlier appeal was that he was a fresh appointee of the Provincial Government with effect from 3‑9‑1977 and it was on the basis of this assertion that he was able to avoid application of Section 11‑A to him. It therefore does not lie with him now to claim that for the purpose of seniority he should be treated as regular appointee from an anterior date. The learned Tribunal was therefore justified in rejecting his claim. The petition is dismissed. A.A./M‑947/S Petition dismissed.