1990 PLP 1453 (SCMR)
MAQBOOL ALAM MAZARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1453 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MAQBOOL ALAM MAZARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1453 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1453 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1453 (SCMR) (MAQBOOL ALAM MAZARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was an Assistant Director in the Labour Welfare Directorate. By a notification dated 22‑5‑1986 he was retired from service on completion of 25 years of service qualifying him for pension and other retirement benefits. He Filed a writ petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of retirement. Later he withdrew the writ petition and filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed as barred by time. Ire now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. The petitioner filed the appeal before the Tribunal more than two months after the order of retirement was made where the prescribed period for this purpose was 30 days from the date of communication of the order. His appeal was, therefore, clearly barred by time. He sought condonation of the delay by alleging that the order of retirement had not been communicated to him. The learned Tribunal rejected this explanation after finding that he had within a fortnight of the passing of the order challenged its legality in the High Court through an incompetent writ petition. We can find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard. Leave is refused. H.B.T./M‑1091/5 Leave refused.