1995SCMR809 (PLP)
Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR809 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR809 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR809 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR809 (PLP) (Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Chaudhry Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1994.
- 2. In support of the above petition Chaudhry Mushtaq Masood, learned Advocate Supreme Court; appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently urged that the grievance of the petitioners in the above service appeals was that their juniors were promoted by bypassing them without justifiable reason and, therefore, when the above cases were remanded to the respondents, they were required to examine the question, whether factually the petitioners were by passed without any justifiable reason.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments dated 16‑12‑1993 and 20‑11‑1993 in Appeals Nos. 73 and 74(L)/92). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servants' earlier appeals were disposed of by Service Tribunal by remanding their cases and directing the Authority for reconsideration of their cases for promotion‑‑‑Civil servants' miscellaneous application, thereafter, alleging therein that Authority had not complied with the earlier judgment of Service Tribunal did not succeed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Service Tribunal having remanded cases for reconsideration of civil servants' promotion Authority was required to examine the question, whether factually civil servants were bypassed without any justifiable reason‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention whether Authority after remand of case failed to consider the said question and whether Service Tribunal failed to take into consideration such aspect of the case viz. civil servants' entitlement to promotion.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above two petitions as they involve common question of law. They are directed against the judgments dated 16‑12‑1993 and 20‑11‑1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeals No. 7,3 and 74(L)/92 filed by the present two petitioners in the above two petitions, declining the petitioners' Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 81 of 1992 and 82 of 1993 filed by them in the above disposed of two appeals, which were disposed of by judgment dated 22‑4‑1993 and the cases were remanded to the authority for reconsideration of their cases for promotion. The above miscellaneous petitions were filed alleging therein that the respondents had not complied with the above judgment of the Tribunal inasmuch as that the petitioners were not promoted on the ground that there was no vacancy. The petitioners have, therefore, filed present petitions for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition Chaudhry Mushtaq Masood, learned Advocate Supreme Court; appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently urged that the grievance of the petitioners in the above service appeals was that their juniors were promoted by bypassing them without justifiable reason and, therefore, when the above cases were remanded to the respondents, they were required to examine the question, whether factually the petitioners were by passed without any justifiable reason. It has further been urged by him that the plea taken by the respondents that there was no vacancy against which the petitioners can be promoted is a plea which negates the above judgment of the Tribunal. It has also been argued by him that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the above aspects.
3. We are inclined to grant leave to consider the above contentions. Leave is accordingly granted. A.A./I‑208/S Leave granted.