| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2793 2021 SLD 2793 2021 PLC 951 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No.893 of 2016, decided on 3rd February, 2021.
TARIQ MEHMOOD, JAHANGIRI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Aslam Sandhu for Petitioner. Raja Abid Hassan for
Respondents Nos.1 and 3.
Writ Petition No.893 of 2016, decided on 3rd February, 2021.
TARIQ MEHMOOD, JAHANGIRI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Aslam Sandhu for Petitioner. Raja Abid Hassan for
Respondents Nos.1 and 3.
GHULAM YASEEN JALBANI
VS
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Civil service---Constitutional petition---Laches, doctrine of-employee (trainee engineer) sought release of his outstanding salary accrued to him nine years ago invoked constitutional jurisdiction to get benefits of previous passed three years back by the High Court, in which he was not a party---Held, that petitioner could not claim the benefit of the , wherein he was not a party had filed the constitutional petition with the delay of more than nine (09) years, which was badly barred by time and hit by the principle of laches failed to pursue his case vigilantly and woke from deep slumber after nine years which could not be ignored without sufficient justification---Existence of laches was sufficient for dismissal of the constitutional petition---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Ahmed and 25 others v. Ghama and 5 others 2005 SCMR 119; 2016 SCMR 183; PLD 2016 SC 872; 2019 SCMR 1720 and PLD 2016 SC 514 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional petition---Factual controversy---Effect, civil servant sought release of his outstanding seven months salary---Authorities contended that petitioner was not entitled for the salary sought for, as he had failed to attend the office during the claimed period---Held, that record revealed that there had been series of correspondence between the petitioner and the authorities wherein authorities kept asserting but he failed to attend the office during said period the petitioner continued to negate the orders of authorities contended that he could submit affidavit showing that he was not gainfully employed and had not drawn salary from any other source during the claimed period---Matter-in-question that whether or not the petitioner had performed his duties during said period was the case of factual controversy---High Court could not resolve such factual controversy under its constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Pakistan WAPDA Employees PEGHAM Union v. Member, National Industrial Relations, Commission Islamabad and others 2014 SCMR 1676; PLD 2011 SC 44; 2011 SCMR 1813 and 2011 SCMR 1023…
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