2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
DILAWAR ALI and another Versus GENERAL MANAGER PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 15 others
| Citation | 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, J |
| Parties | DILAWAR ALI and another Versus GENERAL MANAGER PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 15 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (DILAWAR ALI and another Versus GENERAL MANAGER PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 15 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Omer Alvi for Petitioners.
- Umar Sharif for Respondents Nos.1 to 5.
- Basharat Ali for Respondents Nos.6 to 16.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Retrospective promotion
Petitioners who had retired from service, had sought retrospective promotion from the date prior to their date of retirement
Promotion from a back date being not available to a retired civil servant, relief claimed by petitioners for retrospective promotion after their retirement was not admissible under the law. Muhammad Aslam Sultan v. G.M. Pakistan Railway 2005 PLC (C.S.) 1400 ref.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notifications dated 11-9-1962 and 4-8-1965 provided for filling of 20 per cent of the vacancies of STEs by promotion. The petitioners gave in their options for the said posts in October 1988 and alleged to have had entitlement to appointment as STE by promotion with effect from such date. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court dated 8-7-1998 passed in I.C.A. No 183 of 1997.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, informs that both petitioners retired from service on 31-8-1999 and 2-2-2002 respectively and are seeking retrospective promotion from a date prior to their date of retirement. Promotion from back date is not available to a retired civil servant under the law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Aslam Sultan v. G.M. Pakistan Railway (2005 P. L.C(CS)1400).
3. In the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the relief claimed by the petitioners for retrospective promotion after they have retired from service is not admissible under the law and therefore this petition is dismissed, H.B.T./D-5/L Petition dismissed.