1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus SECRETARY, HEALTH
| Citation | 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry; J |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus SECRETARY, HEALTH |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry; J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus SECRETARY, HEALTH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sajjad Raza Jafri for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Arts. 199 & 212‑‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), Ss. 4 & 8‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Legality‑‑‑Petitioner being a civil servant, his grievance as to change of his card and terms and conditions, could only be made by him before Service Tribunal as the jurisdiction of all Courts including High Court was barred under Art. 212 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ Petitioner having failed to make out a case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court as there was no violation of Law and Rules, Constitutional petition against orders of Authority was dismissed. C.M.No. 4045 of 1990 . This is an application for placing additional documents on record as Annexures `J' and `J/1'. The same is disposed of as allowed.
Judgment & Decree
C.M.No. 4045 of 1990 . This is an application for placing additional documents on record as Annexures `J' and `J/1'. The same is disposed of as allowed. The petitioner in this Constitutional petition has prayed for declaration that orders dated 4-9-1990 and 23-8-1990 arc illegal, void ab initio, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner joined Health Department as Junior Clerk. His appointment was made through office order (Annexure `A'). The petitioner thereafter was promoted as Steno-typist vide order dated 30-1-1982. Thereafter he was posted as Accounts Assistant vide order dated 18-5-1989. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 through impugned order dated 4..9-1990 has directed petitioner's transfer as Stenographer and instead posted respondent No. 3 as Accounts Assistant. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that the order is illegal and without jurisdiction because through the impugned order the cadre of the petitioner has been changed and that respondent No. 3 was earlier transferred on complaint, there existed no justification to introduce him once again.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. It is clear from the perusal of office order dated 18-5-1989 appended by the petitioner as Annexure `B' with the petition that although the petitioner was working as Cashier/Accountant when he was posted as Accounts Assistant, yet his designation was Stenographer.
4. The petitioner was in fact transferred vide order dated 11-6-1990 but he represented against this transfer to respondent No.
1. It seems that the order was held in abeyance and ultimately the respondent No. 1 accorded the approval of petitioner's posting against his original post vide order dated 4-9-1990. It is clear from the original order of transfer appended as Annexure `J/1' with this petition that the post of Accounts Assistant is in BS-11 while that of the Stenographer in BS-12, therefore, if the petitioner has objected to his posting as Accounts Assistant, then he would have been justified but he cannot object to his posting back to his original post having better scale.
5. The petitioner is a civil servant, therefore, grievance as to change of cadre and terms and conditions can only be made before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The jurisdiction of all Courts including this Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Therefore, no finding is recorded as to the merits of this plea. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction as there is no violation of law and rules. No other point was argued. The result is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine. C.M. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1990 are dismissed as infructuous. H.B.T./M-3019/L Petition dismissed.