Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1309 2023 SLD 1309 2023 PLC 592
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 1172 to 1178 of 2020 and Civil Petitions Nos. 3789 to 3796, 2260-L to 2262-L and C.P. 3137-L of 2020 (Against the judgment Dated 30.11.2018, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeals Nos. 3780, 3779, 3852, 3778, 3425,
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND AYESHA A. MALIK, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Syed HAMMAD NABI and others

VS

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB, LAHORE and others

Law: Police Rules, 1934

Section: 12.2(3)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

(a) Police Rules, 1934--- ----R. 12.2(3)---Inspectors serving in (Punjab) Police---Seniority---Final seniority list of Inspectors will be reckoned from the date of confirmation of the officers and not from the date of appointment. Rule 12.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934 (the Rules) provides for two stages for determining the seniority, one is prior to the probationary period and is to be reckoned from the first appointment and the final seniority is settled from the date of confirmation which is once the period of probation is successfully completed. Period of probation is important as the officers have to undergo various courses (A, B, C and D) and qualify the same. Once police officer has successfully undergone the said courses he stands confirmed at the end of the probationary period. The seniority is once again settled, this being the final seniority from the date of confirmation. The said rule is, therefore, very clear that final seniority list of Inspectors will be reckoned from the date of confirmation of the officers and not from the date of appointment.   1999 SCMR 1594; PLD 1985 SC 159 and Muhammed Yousaf and others v. Abdul Rashid and others 1996 SCMR 1297 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 185(3)--- Leave refusing order of the Supreme Court---Precedential value---Leave-refusing order which neither decides any question of law nor enunciates any principle of law in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution does not constitute binding precedent---Impression that a leave-refusing order endorses the statements of law made in the impugned orders and thus enhances the status of those statements as that of the Supreme Court is fallacious---Such impression is based on inference drawn from the leave-refusing orders, while a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and cannot be cited as a precedent for a proposition that may be inferred from it. Muhammad Salman v. Naveed Anjum 2021 SCMR 1675; Tariq Badr v. NBP 2013 SCMR 314; Quinn v. Leathem 1901 AC 495; Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem 1994 SCMR 2213; SHCBA v. Federation PLD 2009 SC 879 and Khairpur Textile Mills v. NBP 2003 CLD 326 ref. (c) Police Order (22 of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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