2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR Versus DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION HUCAA, TERMINAL-I, JIAP, KARACHI and 3 others
| Citation | 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Hafiz Tariq Nasim, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR Versus DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION HUCAA, TERMINAL-I, JIAP, KARACHI and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 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 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Hafiz Tariq Nasim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR Versus DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION HUCAA, TERMINAL-I, JIAP, KARACHI and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Tariq Javed for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Usman Arif for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199-Constitutional petition
Petitioner prayed for setting aside orders whereby his request for correction of date of birth in his service record was declined and he was superannuated
Record produced by authorities had revealed that petitioner had practically accepted his retirement, submitted application for release of his pensionary benefits and did not agitate for correction of his date of birth throughout his 35 years' service
Petitioner having filed constitutional petition at belated stage just to achieve certain benefits, same had no force and was dismissed accordingly. Muhammad Ayaz Khan v. Government of Sindh and others 2007 PLC (C.S.) 716 and Dr. Shamim Waheed v. Province of Punjab and another 2008 PLC (C.S.) 192 ref.
Judgment & Decree
HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.
Through this writ petition, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the orders dated 28-9-2006 and 2-11-2007, whereby his request for correction of date of birth in his service record was declined and he was superannuated with effect from 14-11-2007.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that date of birth of petitioner as recorded in matriculation certificate is 14-11-1949 and he is supposed to be retired on 13-11-2009, whereas contrary to the same he has been retired on 14-11-2007. Further submits that the criteria for superannuation as set up by the respondent is of matriculation certificate but in the present case a, discriminatory treatment is meted out to the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has rendered 35 years service and throughout his service he did not agitate about the correction of date of birth and that the matriculation certificate which is produced in the Court is practically produced before the respondent at the time of his retirement which is confirmed from the C.V. submitted by the petitioner before the respondents. Further submits that the writ petition is hit by laches because the petitioner was informed about the controversy on 6-6-2003, he did not raise any objection to the notice of retirement dated 17-11-2005, he opted for encashment of leave in lieu of LPR on 15-8-2006 and accepted the same on 14-9-2006, meaning thereby that not only the present writ petition ,is hit by laches disentitles the petitioner from relief claimed for rather the impugned matter being a past and closed chapter cannot be reopened. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on Muhammad Ayaz Khan v. Government of Sindh and others 2007 PLC (C.S.) 716 and Dr. Shamim Waheed v. Province of Punjab and another 2008 PLC (C.S.) 192.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The record produced by the respondent clearly reveals that the petitioner practically accepted his retirement, submitted application for release of his pensionary benefits and did not agitate for correction of his date of birth throughout his 35 years' service but at this belated stage just to achieve certain benefits he has filed this writ petition which has no force and is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./M-200/L Petition dismissed.