| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 761 2017 SLD 761 2017 PLC 945 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2012, decision dated: 24-05-2013. Hearing dated: 28-03-2013. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 6-1-2012 in Writ Petition No. 159 of 2009).
MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE, CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, JUSTICE, RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Sardar M.R. Khan, Additional Advocate-General
Respondent(s) by: Khalid Rashid Chaudhry, Advocate
Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2012, decision dated: 24-05-2013. Hearing dated: 28-03-2013. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 6-1-2012 in Writ Petition No. 159 of 2009).
MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE, CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, JUSTICE, RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Sardar M.R. Khan, Additional Advocate-General
Respondent(s) by: Khalid Rashid Chaudhry, Advocate
MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, JUSTICE RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 4 OTHERS
VS
DR. MUHAMMAD AMIN
Law: Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance, 1974
Section: 6
Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974
Section: 3,31,44
(a) Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance, 1974--- ----S. 6---Chairman Mirpur Development Authority---Appointment on contract basis---Removal from service---Audi alteram partem, principle of---Applicability---Employee was appointed as Chairman Mirpur Development Authority on contract basis for three years but was removed from office before expiry of period mentioned in the terms and conditions of order---High Court declared the employee to be entitled for salary, privileges and other benefits as Chairman Development Authority for the remaining period of his contract---Validity---Appointing Authority had been vested with the powers to remove the Chairman Development Authority before the specified period---Employee had accepted the appointment keeping in mind the basic statutory provisions---Notification of terms and conditions would have to be interpreted while keeping in mind the domain and scope of basic statutory provisions under which the Appointing Authority was vested with the powers of appointment---If any terms and conditions was violative to the basic statutory provision, same be deemed to be ineffective and invalid to the extent of inconsistency with the statutory provision---Employee had not succeeded in making out any legal ground for granting the prayed relief under extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction---Employee could hold office only during pleasure of Government---Government was empowered to remove the Chairman Development Authority at any time---Employee had accepted terms and conditions with regard to his removal at any time---Appointment of employee was at the pleasure of Government---Government while removing the employee from office had not violated any provision of law---Order of removal, in the present case, was in accordance with the conditions pre-settled among the parties---When it was established from the record that the party would take a specific stand in defence which was already known and clear then principle of audi alteram partem would not attract---Impugned passed by the High Court was recalled and writ petition was dismissed---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Azad Government and others v. Neelum Flour Mills 1992…
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