1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and another Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB BUTT, ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
| Citation | 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, C. J., Munawar Ahmed Mirza and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and another Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB BUTT, ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, C. J., Munawar Ahmed Mirza and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and another Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB BUTT, ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
- M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 8th October, 1998.
- 3. Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of the appellant has vehemently contended that the impugned judgment is not in accordance with law, and therefore, it should be set aside. However, we have noticed that the respondent had already been retired from service with effect from 5th April, 1991 and the High Court had how been conferred with the power to create/upgrade any appointment by means of itself since 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17‑6‑1992 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1925 of 1991). ‑‑‑‑ Powers of High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution to upgrade post‑‑‑High Court had found that civil servant who stood promoted to BS‑19 on regular basis, was entitled to move‑over to BS‑20 after one year of his promotion to BS‑19 ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether High Court was competent to upgrade any appointment without approval of Provincial Government particularly when upgradation involved financial implications‑‑‑Civil servant had already stood retired and as High Court had acquired necessary powers to upgrade post, appeal was dismissed and leave granting order was recalled in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑‑This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 17‑6‑1992 passed by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1925 of 1991 filed by the respondent, allowing the same by declaring that "the petitioner stands promoted to BS‑19 on regular basis with effect from 1‑12‑1986 and entitled to move‑over to BS‑20 with effect from 1‑12‑1987 and the respondents are hereby directed to issue formal notification forthwith and grant him all the benefits flowing therefrom".
2. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the High Court was competent to upgrade any appointment without the approval of the Provincial Government particularly when the upgradation involved financial complication.
3. Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of the appellant has vehemently contended that the impugned judgment is not in accordance with law, and therefore, it should be set aside. However, we have noticed that the respondent had already been retired from service with effect from 5th April, 1991 and the High Court had how been conferred with the power to create/upgrade any appointment by means of itself since 1995.
4. Since the respondent has already stood retired and as the High Court has acquired the necessary powers to upgrade the post though in 1995, in our view it is not a fit case where we should examine the vires of the above orders of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and leave granting order is recalled. H.B.T./G‑32/S Appeal dismissed