1982 PLP 439 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL MALIK-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 439 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----Art. 212(3)-Compulsory retirement-Service Tribunal refusing restoration of appeal dismissed in default for non-prosecution holding service of notice having been effected on employee of organization where his counsel worked-Contention as to appeal being dismissed in absence of proper service of notice, held, a question of fact and cannot be gone into by Supreme Court-Leave refused in circumstances.-Civil service-Question of fact. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL MALIK-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 439 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 439 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----Art. 212(3)-Compulsory retirement-Service Tribunal refusing restoration of appeal dismissed in default for non-prosecution holding service of notice having been effected on employee of organization where his counsel worked-Contention as to appeal being dismissed in absence of proper service of notice, held, a question of fact and cannot be gone into by Supreme Court-Leave refused in circumstances.-Civil service-Question of fact. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 439 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL MALIK-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Tufail Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 11th February, 1981.
- Sardar Muhammad Tufail Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On petition against the order dated 25-4-1975 of the Service Tribunal, Government of Pakistan).
Art. 212(3)-Compulsory retirement-Service Tribunal refusing restoration of appeal dismissed in default for non-prosecution holding service of notice having been effected on employee of organization where his counsel worked-Contention as to appeal being dismissed in absence of proper service of notice, held, a question of fact and cannot be gone into by Supreme Court-Leave refused in circumstances.-[Civil service-Question of fact].
Judgment & Decree
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.‑The petitioner was an appellant before the Service Tribunal in consequence of his compulsory retirement under M.L.R.
114. The petition was dismissed in default for non‑prosecution on 25‑4‑
75. The petitioner applied for restoration of his appeal on the ground that he had not been served with a notice. This application was dismissed on 26‑6‑75 by the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, on the ground that a notice had been sent by registered post acknowledgement due to the petitioner's counsel who works in Shaukat Law Associates at Lahore. It was duly received by an official of that Organization and so the acknowledgment was duly received back by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that in these circumstances the order of dismissal in default had rightly been passed.
2. It has been submitted before us that Talib Hussain who signed the acknowledgment was no longer connected with Shaukat Law Associates and, therefore, it did not constitute proper service.
3. It is not denied that Talib Hussain had been in the employ of Shaukat Law Associates. That Talib Hussain had left the service on 2nd October, 1974 while the petition was dismissed on 25‑4‑75, does not appeal to us, inter alia, because if Talib Hussain was not in the employ of Shaukat Law Associates on the date when the notice was served how could he be in the office of Shaukat Law Associates and why should he pose as an employee of the Company when the notice was presented to him. In any cause, it is a question of fact and it is not the function of this Court to go into it. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.