1995 PLP 1046 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1046 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1046 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1046 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1046 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazal Ilahi Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st December, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 26‑4‑1994 passed in Appeal No. 54(R) of 1994). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑-Seniority‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servant's appeal for his entitlement to promotion from specified date was dismissed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant referred to earlier decision of Service Tribunal wherein it had held that he was entitled to seniority from specified date and that his promotion which was subsequently made was not challenged by any other civil servant which thus, attained finality and same could not be reversed for vested right was created in his favour‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether Service Tribunal having held so in its earlier order was not justified in its subsequent order that his promotion from subsequent date was justified.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 26‑4‑1994 passed in Appeal No. 54(R) of 1994). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑-Seniority‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servant's appeal for his entitlement to promotion from specified date was dismissed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant referred to earlier decision of Service Tribunal wherein it had held that he was entitled to seniority from specified date and that his promotion which was subsequently made was not challenged by any other civil servant which thus, attained finality and same could not be reversed for vested right was created in his favour‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether Service Tribunal having held so in its earlier order was not justified in its subsequent order that his promotion from subsequent date was justified. Fazal Ilahi Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st December, 1994. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J: ‑‑The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 26‑4‑1994 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the service appeal of the petitioner and held the promotion of the petitioner with effect from 22‑5‑1989 in the cadre of Superintendent having been made validly by the departmental authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the earlier decision of the learned Tribunal dated 2‑9‑1993 wherein the learned Tribunal had held that the petitioner was entitled to the seniority in the cadre of Assistant from 6‑1‑1982 and as the order promoting the petitioner as Superintendent (BPS‑16) with effect from 21‑4‑1985 was not challenged by any other civil servant it attained finality and could not be reversed as a vested right was created in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel accordingly contended that having held so in its previous order dated 2‑9‑1993 the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the promotion of the petitioner in the cadre of Superintendent (BPS‑16) with effect from 22‑5‑1989 was justified. According to the learned counsel the subsequent finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner was rightly shown as promoted to the cadre of Superintendent with effect from 22‑5‑1989 directly came in conflict with the earlier decision of the Tribunal dated 2‑9‑1993. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires examination and we, accordingly grant leave to appeal to consider the same. A.A./M‑2245/S Leave granted.