SCMR 1989

1989SCMR288(1) (PLP)

GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 864 of 1982, decided on 7th August, 1988.
Honorable Judges
ShafiurRehman and Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989SCMR288(1) (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members ShafiurRehman and Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, JJ
Parties GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE Respondent
Primary Law Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), ---S. 151--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974, R. 22--Civil service--Review before Service Tribunal- Not competent--Service Tribunal after having finally decided case had no jurisdiction to review on merits--Order of Service Tribunal dismissing petitioner's application for review of its order, held, was in accordance with law and unexceptionable.
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR288(1) (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), ---S. 151--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974, R. 22--Civil service--Review before Service Tribunal- Not competent--Service Tribunal after having finally decided case had no jurisdiction to review on merits--Order of Service Tribunal dismissing petitioner's application for review of its order, held, was in accordance with law and unexceptionable. as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR288(1) (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: ShafiurRehman and Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR288(1) (PLP) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---S. 151--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974, R. 22--Civil service--Review before Service Tribunal- Not competent--Service Tribunal after having finally decided case had no jurisdiction to review on merits--Order of Service Tribunal dismissing petitioner's application for review of its order, held, was in accordance with law and unexceptionable.

Representation

  • Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988.
  • Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 31-8-1982 in Appeal No. 128(R) of 1979).

Judgment & Decree

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑‑S. 151‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974, R. 22‑‑Civil service‑‑Review before Service Tribunal‑ Not competent‑‑Service Tribunal after having finally decided case had no jurisdiction to review on merits‑‑Order of Service Tribunal dismissing petitioner's application for review of its order, held, was in accordance with law and unexceptionable.‑ Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988. GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑‑Ghulam Muhammad, ex‑Sub-Inspector Rangers has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 31‑8‑1982 whereby his application under section

151. C.P.C. read with rule 22 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974 for review of the order of the Tribunal dated 22‑3‑1982 was dismissed in limine. Learned counsel was unable to cite any provision of law or decision of this Court so as to establish that the Tribunal after having finally decided the case, had the jurisdiction to review on merits. The view taken by the Tribunal being in accordance with law, the impugned order is subject to no exception.