1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
LATIF LODHI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hamid Khan, Member |
| Parties | LATIF LODHI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and another |
| Primary Law | (c) West Pakistan Delegation of Powers (Relaxation of Age) Rules, 1961, (k) Civil service, (h) Judicial review |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) West Pakistan Delegation of Powers (Relaxation of Age) Rules, 1961, (k) Civil service, (h) Judicial review, (i) Judicial review, (d) Civil service, (g) Civil service, (b) Words and phrases, (j) Civil service, (f) Civil service, (e) Civil service, (a) Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Hamid Khan, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (LATIF LODHI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yasin Bhatti and Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant.
- Ch. Manzoor Hussain, D.A. for Respondent No.l.
- Syed Jamshed Ali for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 22
After appointment of civil servant was deemed to have been made on ad hoc basis, question of his eligibility would become irrelevant and unnecessary because under Rule 22 of Rules, requirement of eligibility for ad hoc appointment was of same order as that for regular appointment, meaning thereby that a person could be appointed on ad hoc basis only if he was eligible for regular appointment.
Term `established' denotes to prove, confirm, verify and to put beyond doubt or dispute.
Relaxation of 7 years in age limit of civil servant granted by- Chief Minister had been challenged on ground that under Delegation of Powers Rules, 1961, maximum limit of relaxation in age had been prescribed upto 5 years, thus relaxation of 7 years granted to civil servant by Chief Minister, was in excess of prescribed limit
Maximum relaxation of 5 years prescribed under Rules 1961 was with reference to powers of delegatees i.e. Administrative Secretaries, Heads of Attached Departments, Divisional Commissioners etc. but there was no such limit or fetters placed on powers of rule-making authority which was Chief Minister or Governor of Province-- Relaxation given by Chief Minister of Province in case of civil servant thus was perfectly valid and could not be called in excess of what was permissible under Rules. Hashmat Ali Nasim v. Government of the Punjab 1981 PLC 502 ref.
Acquiescence--Earlier appointment of respondent civil servant and his reinstatement made after his termination which otherwise were validly made by competent authority admittedly neither were challenged by appellant civil servant at appropriate time nor he contested the appeal-- Appellant by his conduct had acquiesced in the matter. 1989 PLC (C.S.) 79 ref.
"Supersede"
"Supersede," means, to obliterate, set aside, annul, replace, make void, repeal.
Term `reinstatement' means to reinstall, re-establish or restore, person or thing to its former state or condition. Black's Law Dictionary and Standard Oxford English Dictionary ref.
Government has unfettered powers to grant retrospective date to regularise a civil servant working against a post
Regularisation per se of civil servant's promotion retrospectively thus was neither irregular nor illegal. Hashmat Ali Nasim v. Government of the Punjab 1981 PLC (C.S.) 502 ref.
Judicial review of order was totally distinguishable from administrative review of Authority which had earlier passed original order
No restriction was imposed on competent Authority to make an administrative review of its own decisions. Sabir Ahmad Chaudhry v. The Province of East Pakistan and another PLD 1960 Dacca 1025 ref.
Judicial and administrative review
Action of Authority, taken under MLR 21 under the Constitution (8th Amendment) Act, 1985, was not open to judicial review and it would not even by implication place any restriction on competent Authority to make an administrative review of its own decisions. Sabir Ahmad Chaudhry v. The Province of East Pakistan and another PLD 1900 Dacca 1025 ref.
Order challenged in appeal was passed by Chief Minister of Province and was issued in the name of Governor of Province
No further departmental remedy being available to appellant, contention that appeal was not maintainable, as appellant had not exhausted remedy of filing departmental appeal was repelled. Falak Sher Khan and another v. Secretary to Government to the Punjab etc. PLD 1989 SC 562 ref.
Regular promotion, could only be made after obtaining recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee. Ch. Hakim Ali etc. v. Government of Punjab etc.1987 PLC (C.S.) 662 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Term `reinstatement' means to reinstall, re-establish or restore, person or thing to its former state or condition. Black's Law Dictionary and Standard Oxford English Dictionary ref. (g) Civil service
Government has unfettered powers to grant retrospective date to regularise a civil servant working against a post
Regularisation per se of civil servant's promotion retrospectively thus was neither irregular nor illegal. Hashmat Ali Nasim v. Government of the Punjab 1981 PLC (C.S.) 502 ref. (h) Judicial review
Judicial review of order was totally distinguishable from administrative review of Authority which had earlier passed original order
No restriction was imposed on competent Authority to make an administrative review of its own decisions. Sabir Ahmad Chaudhry v. The Province of East Pakistan and another PLD 1960 Dacca 1025 ref. (i) Judicial review
Judicial and administrative review
Action of Authority, taken under MLR 21 under the Constitution (8th Amendment) Act, 1985, was not open to judicial review and it would not even by implication place any restriction on competent Authority to make an administrative review of its own decisions. Sabir Ahmad Chaudhry v. The Province of East Pakistan and another PLD 1900 Dacca 1025 ref. (j) Civil service
Order challenged in appeal was passed by Chief Minister of Province and was issued in the name of Governor of Province
No further departmental remedy being available to appellant, contention that appeal was not maintainable, as appellant had not exhausted remedy of filing departmental appeal was repelled. Falak Sher Khan and another v. Secretary to Government to the Punjab etc. PLD 1989 SC 562 ref. (k) Civil service
Regular promotion, could only be made after obtaining recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee. Ch. Hakim Ali etc. v. Government of Punjab etc.1987 PLC (C.S.) 662 ref. Muhammad Yasin Bhatti and Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Ch. Manzoor Hussain, D.A. for Respondent No.l. Syed Jamshed Ali for Respondent No.