1989 PLP 1267 (SCMR)
Mian SHAH AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus KHURSHID ALAM BHATTI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1267 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mian SHAH AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus KHURSHID ALAM BHATTI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1267 (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 1989 PLP 1267 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1267 (SCMR) (Mian SHAH AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus KHURSHID ALAM BHATTI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1989
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 3‑8‑1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in case No. 94/639 of 1980). ‑‑S.4‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Second representation by the civil servant sought same relief which he had asked for in the first representation‑‑Date of rejection of second representation, held, could not be treated as the starting point for the purpose of limitation.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 3‑8‑1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the petitioner's appeal against certain anti‑dated pro forma promotions of respondents Nos.l to 3 was dismissed. By Notification dated 27‑9‑1975 respondents Nos.l to 3 were promoted as Principals in Government Commercial Training Institutes with effect from 1‑7‑1967 and 2‑5‑1968. On 28‑10‑1975, the petitioner filed a departmental representation challenging their promotions from back dates. His representation was rejected on 19‑11‑1975. The petitioner kept quiet till 30‑6‑1977 when he filed another representation to the same effect. This second representation was rejected on 8‑1‑1980. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal on 17‑2‑1980. It was dismissed inter alia on the ground that it was barred by time.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not persuaded that the view taken by the learned Tribunal on the question of limitation suffers from any infirmity. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that for the purpose of limitation the date of rejection of the second representation should be treated as the starting point. It is difficult to accept this contention, for he concedes that in the second representation he was seeking the same relief as he had sought in the first representation. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.B.A./S‑295/S Petition dismissed.