| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 186 2015 SLD 186 2015 SCMR 795 (2015) 112 TAX 167 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 418 and 707 of 2012, decision dated: 8-02-2013
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JJ
Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. 418 of 2012). Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. 707 of 2012). Ejaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 (in C.P. 418 of 2012). M.S
Civil Petitions Nos. 418 and 707 of 2012, decision dated: 8-02-2013
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JJ
Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. 418 of 2012). Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. 707 of 2012). Ejaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 (in C.P. 418 of 2012). M.S
FAZLI HAKEEM and anothers
VS
SECRETARY STATE AND FRONTIER REGIONS DIVISION ISLAMABAD and others
Law: Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Section: 5(1)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 3
(a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 5(1)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Federal Service Tribunal, order of--- Order not passed in accordance with law---Void order, limitation against---Scope---Promotion---Temporary employee promoted in preference to regular employees against the law---Contention of respondent that present petition should be dismissed on the grounds of limitation---Validity---Respondent was a temporary contract employee and he was working as such at the time he was promoted---Question as to how could the respondent rank senior and how he could be given preference over the employees who were regularized much earlier were questions which had not been answered either in the impugned of the Service Tribunal or by the respondent---Present case was not a case where the matter could be set at rest by invoking the provisions regulating limitation---Courts of law were not supposed to perpetuate what was unjust and unfair by exploring explanation for an act which was prima facie against law and thus void---Courts should rather explore ways and means for undoing what was unfair and unjust---Even where the question of limitation, if at all, created any impediment in the fair adjudication of the case, it had to be looked from such angle of vision---Controversy urged before the Service Tribunal in the present case had not been considered and decided in its correct perspective---Remand of the present case was inevitable---Supreme Court, thus, converted petition for leave to appeal into an appeal, set aside the impugned of Service Tribunal and sent the case back to the Service Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447 ref. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Person/institution exercising executive, judicial or quasi-judicial power---Order of---Order not passed in accordance with law---Non est order--- Scope---Repository of executive, judicial or quasi-judicial power was required to act in accordance with law---For the very condition for the conferment of such power was that such…
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