1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ILYAS MALIK Versus MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through its Secretary, Islamabad and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ILYAS MALIK Versus MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through its Secretary, Islamabad and another |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 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 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ILYAS MALIK Versus MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through its Secretary, Islamabad and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents,
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 1994
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in appeal No. 6(L) of 1984). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil servant ‑‑‑Upgradation and fixation of seniority‑‑ Civil servant was initially removed from service but was reinstated by Service Tribunal ‑‑‑Intervening period between removal and re instatement was treated as leave of the kind due to civil servant‑‑‑Civil servant was not considered for upgradation, as he was at that time out of service while officials of his department were allowed benefit of upgradation from specified date‑‑‑Civil servant's representation was not accepted and his appeal before Service Tribunal did not bear fruit‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that order of removal from service having been set aside, civil servant was deemed to be in service and as such he was entitled to benefit of upgradation of post from specified date.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. The Petitioner while working as a Registration Inspector/Registrar, Industrial Registration Office, Vehari, was removed from service by order dated 16‑2‑1982. This order was set aside by the Tribunal and the Petitioner was reinstated by order dated 3‑4‑1989, but it was left open to the respondents to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings and to determine as td how the intervening period could be treated. Fresh proceedings were accordingly taken and the Petitioner was found guilty of inefficiency. He was censured by order dated 17‑9‑1989 and the intervening period from 16‑2‑1982 to 17‑4‑1989 was treated as, leave of the kind due to him.
3. By Notification dated 22‑5‑1986 issued by the Establishment Division, Registration Inspectors/Registrars and Statistical Investigators (BPS‑16) were upgraded to BPS‑17 and 132 officials were allowed benefit of upgradation to BPS‑17 by Notification dated 29‑5‑1986. The petitioner was not considered for upgradation as he was at that time out of service. After his reinstatement the Petitioner made representation before the Director‑General, Registration, on 26‑9‑1989 for his upgradation to BPS‑
17. By Notification dated 13‑1‑1991 the petitioner was upgraded to BPS‑17 with effect from 22‑11‑1990. On 10‑2‑1991 the petitioner represented before respondent No. 2 for his upgradation from the due date. Thereafter representation was made to the Secretary, Establishment Division on 10‑8‑1991 through proper channel for his upgradation and fixation of seniority accordingly. The petitioner's representation was not accepted, which was conveyed by letter dated 10‑11‑1991. The petitioner then filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the order of removal from service had been set aside and the petitioner remained in service, he was entitled to benefit of upgradation of post with effect from 29‑5‑1986. The question requires consideration. Leave is granted. A.A./M‑2127/S Leave granted.