2001 SCMR 1408 (PLP)
DEPARTMENT and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Dr. SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUE and‑ others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 SCMR 1408 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, C.J., |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Dr. SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUE and‑ others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 SCMR 1408 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 SCMR 1408 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, C.J.,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 SCMR 1408 (PLP) (DEPARTMENT and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Dr. SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUE and‑ others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Riaz Lone, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th January, 2001.
- IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.‑‑‑Mr. Muhammad Riaz. Lone, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners, mainly contended that the Punjab Service Tribunal, vide judgment dated 20‑5‑2000 passed in Appeal No.734 of 1999, was wrong in deviating from the judgment of this Court dated 4‑12‑1998 passed in Civil Petition No.387 of 1998 (Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui v. Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore. and another). In the case of Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui (supra) the Department had been directed to complete the implementation of the judgment of this Court delivered in Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui v. Mian Abdul Malik and 4 others PLD 1991 SC 226. The impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal in conformity with the rule laid down in the said judgment. Consequently, no case warranting interference is made out. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution is involved in this case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑5‑2000 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No.734 of 1999). ‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Terms and conditions of service‑‑‑Order passed by Supreme Court, implementation of‑‑‑No substantial question of law of public importance involved in petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Grievance of civil servant was that the order of Supreme Court in case titled Dr. Sabir Zamir Siddiqui v. Mian Abdul Malik and 4 others reported as PLD 1991 SC 226 was not implemented by the Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order was passed by the Tribunal in conformity with the rule laid down in the judgment‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment of Service Tribunal as no substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Art. 212(3) of the Constitution was involved in the case‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui v. Mian Abdul Malik and 4 others PLD 1991 SC 226 ref.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑5‑2000 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No.734 of 1999). ‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Terms and conditions of service‑‑‑Order passed by Supreme Court, implementation of‑‑‑No substantial question of law of public importance involved in petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Grievance of civil servant was that the order of Supreme Court in case titled Dr. Sabir Zamir Siddiqui v. Mian Abdul Malik and 4 others reported as PLD 1991 SC 226 was not implemented by the Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order was passed by the Tribunal in conformity with the rule laid down in the judgment‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment of Service Tribunal as no substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Art. 212(3) of the Constitution was involved in the case‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui v. Mian Abdul Malik and 4 others PLD 1991 SC 226 ref. Muhammad Riaz Lone, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th January, 2001. IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.‑‑‑Mr. Muhammad Riaz. Lone, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners, mainly contended that the Punjab Service Tribunal, vide judgment dated 20‑5‑2000 passed in Appeal No.734 of 1999, was wrong in deviating from the judgment of this Court dated 4‑12‑1998 passed in Civil Petition No.387 of 1998 (Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui v. Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore. and another). In the case of Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui (supra) the Department had been directed to complete the implementation of the judgment of this Court delivered in Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui v. Mian Abdul Malik and 4 others PLD 1991 SC
226. The impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal in conformity with the rule laid down in the said judgment. Consequently, no case warranting interference is made out. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution is involved in this case.
2. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined. Q. M. H./S‑110/S Petition dismissed.