1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ABDUR REHMAN CHOWDARY Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS
| Citation | 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Irshad Khan and Brig. (Retd.) Abdur Rashid, Members |
| Parties | ABDUR REHMAN CHOWDARY Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI 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 Federal Service Tribunal 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)) (ABDUR REHMAN CHOWDARY Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqsud Ahmed for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss. 13 (ii) & 5‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 13 (1) ‑ Retirement‑Competency‑President, held, competent to retire a civil servant in Grade‑l7 and appeal against such order barred by Art. 13 (1), Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 320 (L) of 1982, decided on 29th March, 1982. ‑‑Ss. 13 (ii) & 5‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 13 (1) ‑ Retirement‑Competency‑President, held, competent to retire a civil servant in Grade‑l7 and appeal against such order barred by Art. 13 (1), Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. Maqsud Ahmed for Appellant. MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).‑This is an appeal against the retirement of the appellant after he has completed 25 years service qualifying for pension. The case is, therefore, covered by Article 1.3 (1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 and as such the appeal is not entertainable. The counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the appellant's retirement is stated to have been ordered by the President while the authority competent to retire the appellant is the Establishment Secretary. He, therefore, submits that the order having been passed by an authority not competent to retire the appellant, is without jurisdiction and void hence the provisions of Article 13 (1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 are not attracted to the present case the appeal can be heard and decided by this Tribunal. The conten tion is misconceived and untenable. It is our considered view, and we have held so in several identical cases that it is well within the competence of the President to order the retirement of an officer of Grade‑17 under section 13 (ii) read with section 5 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. There fore, the present appeal cannot be entertained by this Tribunaand is accordingly dismissed in limine being barred by Article 13 (1) of the P. C. O. M.Y.M Appeal dismissed.