1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
JAMILA FAZAL Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Azad J&K |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, Member |
| Parties | JAMILA FAZAL Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR |
| Primary Law | (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, (b) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, (b) Civil service 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 Service Tribunal Azad J&K bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, 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)) (JAMILA FAZAL Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Rafique Mahmood for Appellant.
- Syed Nazir Hussain Kazmi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.4
Appellant's review application having not been decided within prescribed period of ninety days, appeal filed within next thirty days was within time.
Entitlement to
Appellant's appointment to a higher post being officiating was a stop-gap arrangement in its nature and was tantamount to ad hoc appointment
Civil servant, when appointed to as higher post or grade on ad hoc or officiating basis was liable to reversion to his lower post or grade without notice
Appellant was, thus, not entitled to he promoted from the date of her officiating/ad hoc appointment.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 485 of 1990, decided on 4th July, 1991. (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975
S.4
Appellant's review application having not been decided within prescribed period of ninety days, appeal filed within next thirty days was within time. (b) Civil service
Entitlement to
Appellant's appointment to a higher post being officiating was a stop-gap arrangement in its nature and was tantamount to ad hoc appointment
Civil servant, when appointed to as higher post or grade on ad hoc or officiating basis was liable to reversion to his lower post or grade without notice
Appellant was, thus, not entitled to he promoted from the date of her officiating/ad hoc appointment. Sardar Rafique Mahmood for Appellant. Syed Nazir Hussain Kazmi for Respondent.