1990 PLP 1458 (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1458 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan ,IJ |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1458 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1458 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan ,IJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1458 (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Awan Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 11‑1‑1988 passed in Appeal No. 87(L) of 1983). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)7‑‑Termination ‑‑‑Re‑instatement without back benefits‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ ‑Petitioner, dismissed from service on ground of remaining absent from duty without getting his leave sanctioned was reinstated by Tribunal without back benefits‑‑‑Accuracy of good and sufficient reasons given by Tribunal in denying back benefits to petitioner having not been challenged, Tribunal, held, competently passed the impugned order‑‑‑No question of law having arisen, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner whose appeal was accepted by the Service Tribunal and whose reinstatement in service was ordered, feels aggrieved by that part of the order whereby back benefits have been denied to him. He seeks (cave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against that part of the order of the Service Tribunal dated 11‑1‑1998 which is otherwise to his benefit.
2. While denying the back benefits, the Tribunal has given the following reasons in justification of it:‑‑
"For the reasons recorded above, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the appellant shall be reinstated in service, with no order of back benefits as the appellant had landed himself on the platform of disciplinary action by his own conduct by remaining absent from duty without getting his leave sanctioned and has succeeded in this appeal on technical ground of law in the inquiry proceedings:" The accuracy of the reason given is not challenged. It is a good and sufficient reason for denying the back benefits and the Service Tribunal had under the late the power to pass such an order. No question of law arises and leave to appeal is refused. FI.B.T./A‑628/S Leave refused.