1988 PLP 37 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR BUTT and others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 37 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR BUTT and others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 37 (SCMR)?
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 1988 PLP 37 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 37 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR BUTT and others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1987.
- 3. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though in fact the appeal was time-barred, it should have been entertained because in identical cases the Tribunal had allowed the relief to others and those cases had come to the Supreme Court and were pending in appeal.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 14-5-1987 passed in Appeal No.54 of 1987).
S. 4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Petitioners' appeal challenging disallowance of special pay by Finance Department dismissed by Service Tribunal as barred by time--Petitioners contending that though appeal was time-barred it should have been entertained because in identical cases Tribunal had allowed the relief to others and those cases were pending in appeal before Supreme Court--Reason advanced could hardly be called justification for condoning delay when no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming--Similar appeal, however, said to be pending on same subject in Supreme Court, instant petition directed to come up for hearing along with them.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the decision of the Service Tribunal dated 14-5-1987 holding their appeal to be time- barred.
2. The petitioners were in receipt of a special pay at the rate of 20$ of their pay for research work that they were doing. By an order of the Finance Department dated 3-4-1986 they were deprived of it. The actual deprivation took place when in October they were made the payments less this allowance. They challenged the order before the Service Tribunal by filing an appeal on 20-1-1987. It was held to be barred by time.
3. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though in fact the appeal was time-barred, it should have been entertained because in identical cases the Tribunal had allowed the relief to others and those cases had come to the Supreme Court and were pending in appeal.
4. The reason advanced by the learned counsel can hardly be called a justification for condoning the delay when patently it exists and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. Besides, it also appears that the petitioners have not satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of filing an appeal or a representation against the order by which they are aggrieved. However, in view of the fact that similar appeals are said to be pending on the same subject in this Court, this petition to come up for hearing along with them. There will be no interim order to protect the interest of the petitioners in the meantime, for they have taken a calculated risk. S.Q./M-215/S Order accordingly.