1990 PLP 1430 (SCMR)
Dr. ABDUL HALIM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1430 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. ABDUL HALIM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1430 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1430 (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 1430 (SCMR) (Dr. ABDUL HALIM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 6‑7‑1987 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Case 1062 of 1986). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Delay in filing appeal‑‑ Condonation of‑‑‑ Leave to appeal ‑‑‑Question whether on facts a case for condonation of delay had been made out being one for Service Tribunal to decide, decision of Tribunal in that regard, held, would not give rise to any question of law‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J,. ‑‑In the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for parts of the years 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1982, adverse entries were recorded. These were communicated to him by a letter dated 22‑5‑1984. He filed a representation for the expunction of these entries. His representation was rejected. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. This was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed that the petitioner's appeal before the learned Tribunal was out of time by 58 days. When called upon to explain the delay by the learned Tribunal, he stated that he was mistaken about the period within which the appeal had to be tiled. The learned Tribunal did not find this explanation to be satisfactory.
3. The question whether on facts a case for condonation of delay had been made out was one for the Tribunal to decide. Its decision in this regard does not give rise to any question of law. Leave is refused. H.B.T./A‑619/S Leave refused.