2006 PLP 1705 (SCMR)
Syed MUNTAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Health, Islamabad and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1705 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | Syed MUNTAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Health, Islamabad and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1705 (SCMR)?
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 1705 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1705 (SCMR) (Syed MUNTAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Health, Islamabad and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- M. Irshad, D.A.-G. with Malik Manzoor, Administrative Officer (NIH), for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th April, 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 23-9-2004 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.168(R)CS of 2002).
S. 4
Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, Rr.6(f) & 10
Format
Non-signing memorandum of appeal by civil servant
Filing of appeal through attorney
Appeal filed by civil servant was dismissed by Service Tribunal on the ground that it was filed through attorney and was not signed by him
No provision existed in R.6 of Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, that filing of appeal through attorney was barred under Rules
Mandatory requirement, besides others, was that memorandum should be signed or thumb-impressed by civil servant
Ground regarding filing of appeal through attorney was not tenable
Appeal before Service Tribunal was instituted on 25-2-2002 but Registrar never returned memorandum of appeal for making up the deficiency, which objection was taken up for the first time by the Service Tribunal almost 2-1/2 years after institution
Civil servant was condemned unheard by making no resort to provisions of R.10 of Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974, thereby attracting provisions of limitation to the detriment of civil servant
Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was set aside and case was remanded for hearing the appeal on merits
Appeal was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.
Syed Muntazir Hussain Shah has tiled this appeal after leave of Court against the judgment, dated 23-9-2004 whereby his service appeal was dismissed as not maintainable under Rule 6(f) of Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, on two-fold ground; firstly that the memorandum of appeal was not signed by the appellant himself and secondly, that it could not have been filed through an attorney.
2. We have carefully gone through the contents of rule 6 (supra) and could not find out any provision that the filing thereof through the attorney was barred under the rule. The mandatory requirement, besides others, was that the memorandum shall be signed or thumb-impressed by the appellant. The ground regarding filing of appeal through the attorney is not at all tenable.
3. No doubt that the signatures or thumb-impression by the appellant on a memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal is mandatory but equally mandatory are the provisions of rule 10 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974 providing procedure to cover up or to make good the deficiencies highlighted under rule 6 (supra). Rule 10(1)(ii) emphatically lays down that if a memorandum is not drawn up in accordance with the provisions of rule 6, the Registrar, after scrutiny shall return the memorandum, pointing out the deficiency, for amendment, within a time to be specified in an order to be recorded by him on the memorandum of appeal . Such time is not to be less than 14 days.
4. In the instant case, the appeal was instituted on 25-2-2002 but the Registrar never returned the memorandum of appeal for making up the deficiency, which was taken up for the first time by the Tribunal almost two and a half years after the institution. The appellant was decidedly condemned unheard by making no resort to the provisions of rule 10 (supra), thereby attracting the provisions of limitation to the detriment of the appellant.
5. Consequently, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment, dated 23-9-2004 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad for hearing the appeal on merits. M.H./M-125/SC Case remanded.