2010 PLP 1587 (SCMR)
NAEEM TARIQ SANGHERA and others — Petitioners Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1587 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | NAEEM TARIQ SANGHERA and others — Petitioners Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1587 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1587 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1587 (SCMR) (NAEEM TARIQ SANGHERA and others — Petitioners Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Mehmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.2123 and 2248 of 2009).
- Sardar Abdul Raziq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.2134, 2194, 2196 of 2009).
- Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 2166 to 2169 and 2142 of 2009).
- Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 2237 of 2009).
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. 2221 of 2009).
- Mian Subah Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court 'for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 2222 to 2223 of 2009).
- Farooq Amjad Meer, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. 2198, 2201, 2203, 2209, 2235 of 2009).
- Mian Jaffer Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court (Absent) for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 2161 to 2165, 2196 to 2197, 2200, 2202, 2204, 2205 to 2208, 2211, 2214 to 2216, 2219, 2238 to 2242, 2244 to 2247 and 2249 of 2009, C.Ps. 2, 3, 4, 6 to 13 of 2010).
- Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari, P.G. Punjab and Ch. Khadim Hussain Qaiser, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 4-12-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petitions Nos.9398, 1079, 1075, 1945, 2397, 3939, 3984, 9725, 9521, 9537, 1097, 1098, 1075, 9547, 9397, 9461, 9543, 9536, 1938, 3983, 1962, 9764, 9677, 9400, 9394, 9410, 1940, 10129, 9422, 9567, 1944, 3992, 9437, 9467, 1067, 9478, 9416, 1939, 9638, 9643, 9440, 9396, 9610, 9534, 9421, 4047, 9465, 9693, 9409, 3941, 9468, 9654, 9464, 3982, 9702, 9752, 9683, 9746, 9699, 1961 and 9755 of 2008).
S.8(4)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Parties had contended that petitions for leave to appeal be disposed of in the terms that the Government of the Punjab through Prosecutor General be directed to manage examination of all the prosecutors presently functioning in the Province in terms of subsection (4) of S.8 of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and powers) Act, 2006, in two phases that there should not be any discrimination between the candidates, either belonging to the first batch or the second batch and they should be treated at par before the Punjab Public Service Commission that said arrangement had been made without prejudice to the impugned judgment which would remain intact with its full force as a result whereof the Prosecution Branch was not alleged to entrust work to the petitioners during the stipulated period
Said arrangement between the parties was accepted and petition was disposed of accordingly by the Supreme Court. Amanat Ali Bukhari in person (in C.P. 2213 of 2009).
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and examined merits of the case with their assistance. However, it is contended on behalf of petitioners as well as respondents that the petitions may be disposed of in the following terms:-- (1) The Government of the Punjab through Prosecutor General be directed to manage examinations of all the prosecutors presently functioning in the Province in terms of subsection (4) of section 8 of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, in two phases: (i) The examination of the petitioners shall be conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission within two months commencing from 11-1-2010 to 11-3-2010 as per procedure. Besides above candidates, any other candidate interested in appointment against any of the vacancies, which shall be advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission, shall also be eligible to file application and such applications shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with the service rules prevailing in the Province. (ii) Other than the petitioners, there are prosecutors working in the Province who had been retained. They have also to undertake examination of Punjab Public Service Commission to meet the requirement of subsection (4) of section 8 of the above-referred Act. In respect thereof, the exercise shall be completed within next two months commencing from 12-3-2010 to 12-5-2010 and the fresh candidates interested for recruitment shall also be eligible to apply along with them. Their cases shall also be dealt with by the Punjab Public Service Commission strictly in accordance with law as noted herein above. (iii) Petitioners have not been allowed one month's notice pay in lieu of termination of their services, therefore, Government of the Punjab shall pay them notice pay of one month and compensation in addition to it for the equal period (one month) shall also be paid to them. However, this arrangement shall come to an end on (sic) stipulated above by the Punjab Public Service Commission. (2) There should not be any discrimination between the candidates either belonging to the first batch or the second batch and they should be treated at par before the Punjab Public Service Commission. (3) The above arrangement has been made without prejudice to the impugned judgment which shall remain intact with its full force as a result whereof the Prosecution Branch is not obliged to entrust work to the petitioners during the stipulated period mentioned herein above. Furthermore, any observation against the candidates appearing before the Punjab Public Service Commission made at any stage against them shall not be treated a stigma against them while appearing before the Commission. The above arrangement between the parties is accepted. Petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab as well as Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission are directed to ensure the implementation of the above judgment in letter and spirit, and the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab shall submit report through Prosecutor-General fortnightly to the Registrar of this Court in respect of the progress in the matter for our perusal in Chambers. H.B.T./N-11/SC Order accordingly.