1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
RASH KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF KASHMIR AFFAIRS NORTHERN AFFAIRS DIVISION AND OTHERS
| Citation | 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Irshad Khan and Brig. (Retd.) Abdur Rashid, Members |
| Parties | RASH KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF KASHMIR AFFAIRS NORTHERN AFFAIRS DIVISION AND OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Irshad Khan and Brig. (Retd.) Abdur Rashid, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (RASH KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF KASHMIR AFFAIRS NORTHERN AFFAIRS DIVISION AND OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- F. E. Siddiqui for Appellant.
- Syed M. Shahudul Haq for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 4 (1)‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Lies against final order- Appeal against tentative seniority list‑Not maintainable. S. H. M. Rizvi v. Maqsood Ahmed P L D 1981 S C 612 rel. Respondent No. 5 in person. M. S. Siddiqui for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).‑The appellant, an Agriculture Engineer in the Agriculture Department seeks to challenge the seniority list of the officers of the Agriculture Department, Gilgit, by urging that his name has been wrongly excluded therefrom.
2. An objection has been taken by the respondent‑department about the competence and maintainability of the present appeal. It is contended that the list impugned by the appellant is tentative and will be finalized after the proposed recruitment rules are framed for which a case is being processed in consultation with the Establishment Division/ Federal Public Service Commission.
3. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of S. H. M. Rizvi v. Maqsood Ahmed (PLD1981SC612) and it was laid down by their Lordships: ‑ Right of appeal has been conferred by subsection (1) of section 4 only against a 'final order whether original or appellate'. A final order has the distinction of determining the rights of the parties. Where any further step is necessary to perfect an order, in this case the f ' disposal of the objections received or finalization of the provisional seniority list, the order cannot be taken to be final. An order may be final, if it determines the rights of the parties, concludes the controversy so far as a particular authority or forum is concerned notwithstanding that such an order may be open to challenge in appeal etc." It was further held that proviso (a) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act accomplishes that even a final order should not be brought before the Service Tribunal if a right of appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority is provided under the law, unless that right has been availed of and the specified number of 90 days has elapsed without a substantive order. This authority is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case wherein also a tentative seniority list had been impugned by the appellant. We have, therefore, no option but to dismiss this appeal being incompetent. Since the appeal stands disposed of on the technical ground, we need not advert to the merits of the appellant's claim. There shall be no order as to costs. A. S. Appeal dismissed.