2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Lt.Cdr., (Rtd.P.N.) ENGINEER ABDUL AZIZ NAREJO Versus KARACHI PORT TRUST and 2 others
| Citation | 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Maqbool Baqar, J |
| Parties | Lt.Cdr., (Rtd.P.N.) ENGINEER ABDUL AZIZ NAREJO Versus KARACHI PORT TRUST and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Maqbool Baqar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Lt.Cdr., (Rtd.P.N.) ENGINEER ABDUL AZIZ NAREJO Versus KARACHI PORT TRUST and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ansari Abdul Latif for Petitioner.
- S. Hassan Azhar Rizvi, and Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, DAG on Court notice for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th April, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 4(1), Proviso (a)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212
Constitutional petition
Petitioner seeking direction to the authorities to decide his Departmental appeal
Such direction could not be issued as S.4(1) read with proviso. (a) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, had clearly stipulated that even appeal against original order was maintainable provided one preferred to a Departmental Authority had remained undecided for a period of 90 days
Petitioner was entitled to move Service Tribunal within 120 days from date he preferred a Departmental appeal
Alternate remedy was available to petitioner under law which had ousted jurisdiction of High Court under Art.212 of the Constitution
Constitutional petition could not be entertained, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.
The matter apparently relates to terms and conditions of service - it is however, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only seeking, direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner's departmental appeal which was preferred in August, 1996, but remained undecided despite repeated reminders till 2003 when this petition was filed.
2. We are afraid in our view such direction cannot be issued section 4(1) read with proviso (A) to Service Tribunals Act, 1973, clearly stipulates that even appeal against an original order is maintainable provided one preferred to a departmental authority has remained undecided for a period of 90 days. Indeed the petitioner was entitled to move the Federal Service Tribunal within 120 days from the date he preferred a departmental appeal in August, 1996 an alternate remedy being available under the law which completely oust our jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, we regret we cannot entertain this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Nevertheless the petitioner may approach the competent Service Tribunal which will indeed consider the question of granting the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner. At the same time we express our strong disapproval of the delay caused by the respondents in deciding the appeal which could possibly lead to inference of mala fide in a given case. Nevertheless we express no opinion on this question. H.B.T./A-234/K Petition dismissed.