| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 145 1974 SLD 145 1974 SCMR 203 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 88 of 1973, decision dated: 2nd October 1973. (On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29-11-1972, in Criminal Original No. 38/C of 1972)
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD GUL, J
M. Dilawar Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 88 of 1973, decision dated: 2nd October 1973. (On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29-11-1972, in Criminal Original No. 38/C of 1972)
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD GUL, J
M. Dilawar Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
NHIR AHMAD
VS
THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD AND 2 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1972)---Art. 206-Contempt petition-Not substitute for execution-Nor alternative method of getting something done which could not be done even in execution proceedings-Purely declaratory decree being not executable, resort cannot be had to proceedings In contempt for failure to abide by decree. ORDER HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court allowing a compromise to be entered into in a contempt application. The petitioner, it appears, had obtained a decree for a declaration that he was wrongfully removed from service. This decree was upheld right up to the Supreme Court. Thereafter the petitioner was re-instated in service, but some dispute arose as to the correct seniority of the petitioner and as to whether he had received all the benefits of the increments to which he would have been entitled if he had not been wrongfully removed from service. There was some question also of the proper fixation of his pay in the revised junior scale. By the compromise, his salary was fixed at Rs. 530 per mensem instead of Rs. 350 which he was then drawing and it was agreed that he would be treated as the senior-most Assistant Works Manager for purposes of seniority, provided he waived his claim to arrears of salary. The learned counsel for the petitioner accepted the offer and the contempt matter was disposed of as not requiring any further action thereon. When this matter first came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing in support of the application raised the question as to whether the counsel appearing in the contempt matter had authority to enter into such a compromise and thereby surrender rights which had accrued to the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492