1986 PLP 1055 (SCMR)
Syed GHULAM RAZA — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1055 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Syed GHULAM RAZA — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1055 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1055 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1055 (SCMR) (Syed GHULAM RAZA — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review of the judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 29-2-1984).
O.XXVI, r.l--Review--Petition for leave to appeal--All aspects of contention raised in review petition dealt with in petition for leave to appeal dismissed earlier--What petitioner sought amounted to a rehearing de novo of his entire case on same grounds which was against scope and purpose of review--Petition, held, without merit and dismissed. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks review of our judgment, dated 29‑2‑1984 whereby his petition for leave to appeal was disposed of. His sole contention is that as he was already in service before 29‑4‑1977 and had been validly appointed a civil servant by letter, dated 2‑7‑1977, he did not fall in the category of employees whose case was to be referred to Public Service Commission. For this, he relies on the definition of "employee" in clause (f) and of "Council" in clause (d) of section 2 of Ordinance XIV of 1981. The submission of the petitioner, who earlier also personally argued his case, finds mention in paras. 14 to 16 of the judgment, and all aspects of his contention are dealt with therein. What the petitioner is now seeking amounts to a rehearing de novo of his entire case on the same grounds. Such is not the scope and purpose of a review. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.