1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Prof. Dr. Syed ADIL HUSSAIN Versus UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI and others
| Citation | 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Prof. Dr. Syed ADIL HUSSAIN Versus UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI and others |
| Primary Law | University of Karachi Code, 1984‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: University of Karachi Code, 1984‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Prof. Dr. Syed ADIL HUSSAIN Versus UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abul Khair Ansari for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Scheme of Basic Pay Scales and Fringe Benefits, para.25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Leave preparatory to retirement‑‑Encashment of‑ Option, confirmation of‑‑Government servant is only required to state his option with regard to availing or otherwise of leave preparatory to retirement and no confirmation of such option was needed by any authority‑‑Option once exercised, consequences provided would automatically follow.
Judgment & Decree
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑The petitioner who is a professor in the Department of Political Science. University of Karachi has 'filed this petition and has made a grievance that in spite of the fact that he exercised his option not to avail the L.P.R. in accordance with paragraph 25 of the Scheme of Basic Pay Scale & Fringe Benefits appearing at page 505 of the University of Karachi Code (January 1984 Edition), the authority concerned has not yet intimated him about the acceptance of the option exercised by him. The relevant rule is already reproduced in Annexure "A" to the petition which is a letter addressed ‑ to the petitioner by the Registrar of the University and reads as follows:‑ 25‑ ENCASHMENT OF L.P.R.. At present encashment of LPR upto six months is permissible to Government servants provided the LPR is refused by Government in public interest. Henceforth, the option for Encashment of LPR shall rest with the Government servant concerned. In case, a Government servant opts not take LPR he shall be allowed leave salary for the period which LPR is admissible subject to a maximum of six months." From the letter Annexure "A" to the petition as well as from the rule quoted above it is quite clear that the petitioner was only required to state his option with regard to availing or otherwise of the L.P.R. and no confirmation of such an option was needed by any authority. In our view as soon as a Government servant exercises his option in accordance with the provisions of the above rule the consequences provided therein automatically follow. We accordingly see no justification for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner's counsel before us and dismiss the petition summarily. M.Z.S./A‑505/K Petition dismissed.