1998 PLP 2324 (SCMR)
ALLAH RAKHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2324 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH RAKHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2324 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2324 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2324 (SCMR) (ALLAH RAKHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Fazal‑e‑Miran Chuhan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Fazal-e-Miran Chuhan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 20‑5‑1997, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Civil Appeal No. 55/L of 1997). West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI1' of 1958) ‑‑‑‑S. 17(1‑A)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Transfer‑‑ Employee of WAPDA‑‑‑Transfer of employee was found to be mala fide‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Controversy raised in case was concluded by finding of fact recorded by Service Tribunal to the effect that order of transfer of employee was mala fide‑‑‑Such finding of fact arrived at by Service Tribunal upon proper consideration of relevant material on record could not be interfered with by Supreme Court, in absence of anything on record to show any misreading or disregard of any material evidence on record‑‑‑Petitioner was unable to show any error in appreciation of evidence by Service Tribunal‑‑‑No question of law of public importance being involved therein, impugned order was unexceptionable‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 20-5-1997, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Civil Appeal No. 55(L) of 1997.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Allah Rakha petitioner, while working as Fitter in Grade-1 in the Office of XEN T.R. (D) Workshop, Shalimar, Lahore, was promoted as Assistant Foreman and posted in the same capacity in the office of XEN T.R. (D), Nowshera against a vacant post vide order dated 17-6-1996. The promotion of the petitioner was provisional and on temporary basis until further orders. The petitioner failed to join the post within 15 days in accordance with the condition laid down in the promotion order, WAPDA, therefore, passed another order on 22-9-1996, whereby the petitioner was attached with XEN T.R. (D) Workshop, Shalimar, Lahore and his pay was to be charged against his original post of Assistant Foreman T.R. (D) Workshop, Nowhsera till further orders. Finally, by order dated 26-9-1996, Rehmat Khan respondent No. 5'herein was posted as Assistant Foreman T.R. (D) Workshop Nowhsera and the petitioner was allowed to continue in place of respondent No. 5 in the T.R. (D) Workshop, Shalimar, Lahore. Respondent No. 5 being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order approached the Tribunal, which after thorough scrutiny of the material on record, recorded a finding of fact that the order of transfer dated 26-9-1996 was passed mala fide, with a view to accommodate the petitioner out of way and not in the exigencies of service.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material available on record. Suffice it to say that the controversy raised herein is concluded by a finding of fact that the order of transfer dated 26-9-1996 was mala fide. Clearly, a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal upon proper consideration of relevant material on record cannot be interfered with by this Court, in the absence of anything on the record to show any misreading or disregard of any material evidence on record. Here learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any error in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. No question of law of public importance is involved in this case. The impugned order is unexceptionable In the result, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A./A-43/S Leave refused,