1989 PLP 1755 (SCMR)
IFTIKHAR AHMAD Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1755 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR AHMAD Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1755 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1755 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1755 (SCMR) (IFTIKHAR AHMAD Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaman Oureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 14‑1‑1986 passed in Case No, 32 of 1980). ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Temporary employee‑‑Petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis against a ]cave vacancy‑‑Department terminated his services when the person against whom he was appointed had reported for duty‑‑Held, petitioner being a temporary employee had no right to be retained on the said post‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 14‑1‑1986.
2. The petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis against a leave vacancy and as soon as the incumbent reported for duty his services were terminated. His appeal against the order of termination of his services was rejected by the Commissioner of the Division on 14‑12‑1985 and so was his appeal before the Tribunal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis against a leave vacancy, therefore, the Department had no alternative but to terminate his services when the person against whom he was appointed had reported for duty. Being a temporary employee he had no right to be retained on the said post. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. MA.K/I‑82/S Petition dismissed.