1994 PLP 242 (SCMR)
NASIMULIAH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus BOARD OF REVENUE, N.‑W.F.P. and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 242 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | NASIMULIAH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus BOARD OF REVENUE, N.‑W.F.P. and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 242 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 242 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 242 (SCMR) (NASIMULIAH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus BOARD OF REVENUE, N.‑W.F.P. and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar dated 23‑12‑1992 passed in Appeal No. 130 of 1992). North‑West Frontier Province Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act (11 of 1987)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Appointment of civil servant on ad hoc basis‑‑‑Entitlement to regularisation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether case of civil servant was covered by S. 3, North‑West Frontier Province Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987, so as to entitle him to regularisation of his services.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Petitioner claims that he joined service as Patwari in the year 1961 and was selected as Qanungo in 1971 and his appointment as such was regularised in 1976. In 1978 he was appointed as Naib‑Tehsildar on ad hoc basis but his appointment is not regularised while in the meantime his juniors have been promoted. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to regularisation of service as he has been holding ad hoc appointment before 20th September, 1986 as is envisaged under section 3 of N.‑W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987.
2. On the other hand Service‑Tribunal has held as is claimed by official respondents that petitioner is not an ad hoc appointee against the post of Naib -Tehsildar but was promoted on temporary basis as stop‑gap arrangement and his promotion could not be regularised as he was not considered fit on account of patchy record. Petitioner also claims that his case is analogous to that of Mr. Muhammad Nihar, ad hoc Naib‑Tehsildar, whose service was ordered to be regularised under section 3 of the abovementioned Act by the Service Tribunal and against that order petition for leave to appeal was filed in this Court (C.P. No. 209‑P of 1991) titled as Commissioner, Peshawar Division and others v. Muhammad Nihar Naib‑Tehsildar, which has been dismissed vide order dated 18‑5‑1992.
3. Leave is granted to consider whether case of the petitioner is covered by section 3 of the Act mentioned above. AA./N‑346/S Leave granted.