1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD JAMIL Versus SECRETARY, REHABILITATION AND OTHERS
| Citation | 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAMIL Versus SECRETARY, REHABILITATION AND OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD JAMIL Versus SECRETARY, REHABILITATION AND OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑
Ss. 2 & 4‑Employee of Settlement Organisation a Federal Government Organisation‑Not a civil servant for purposes of Act‑Order regarding termination of service by Federal Government Authorities‑Not challengable before Service Tribunal, Punjab.
Judgment & Decree
M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑--The appellant in this appeal assails the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, dated 15th June, 1965 terminating his services w.e.f. 30th June, 1965 from the post of Upper Division Clerk on account of the retrench ment in the Settlement Organisation. At the relevant time, the Settle ment Department was admittedly the Central Organisation. The appellant also appears to have been involved in two criminal cases Nos. 8 and 9, under sections 380/411/409/419 and 420, P. P. C. and under sec tion 420/468/471/419/34, P. P. C. in which he was acquitted on 4th October. 1973 by the Special Judge (Central), Lahore, by giving him the benefit of doubt. As such the appellant at no stage was a Civil Servant, nor he has produced before us any order passed by any Provincial Departmental Authority against him.
2. The present appeal is, therefore, incompetent which is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.