| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 381 1956 SLD 381 = 1956 PLD 331 |
Supreme Appellate Court, Pakistan
Civil Appeals No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of 1956, decided on 1st June, 1956. (On appeal from the judgments and orders of the Chief Court of Sind at Karachi (now High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi), dated the 4th December, 1954, in Suits No. 882, 883, 884, 885, 900, 983 and 986 of 1953 = P L D 1955 Sind 200, and dated the 15th March, 1955, in First Appeals No. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of 1954 - P L D 1955 Sind 285).
(Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: Muhammad Munir, C. J., M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ
Manzur Qadir Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. Ismail Bhatti Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney for Appellants. M. Anwar and H. T. Raymond Advocates Supreme Court instructed by M. A. Zaidi, Attorney for
Respondent.
Civil Appeals No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of 1956, decided on 1st June, 1956. (On appeal from the judgments and orders of the Chief Court of Sind at Karachi (now High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi), dated the 4th December, 1954, in Suits No. 882, 883, 884, 885, 900, 983 and 986 of 1953 = P L D 1955 Sind 200, and dated the 15th March, 1955, in First Appeals No. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of 1954 - P L D 1955 Sind 285).
(Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: Muhammad Munir, C. J., M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ
Manzur Qadir Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. Ismail Bhatti Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney for Appellants. M. Anwar and H. T. Raymond Advocates Supreme Court instructed by M. A. Zaidi, Attorney for
Respondent.
NOORUL HASSAN AND OTHERS-Appellants
VERSUS
THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN-Respondent
Law: Government of India Act, 1933
Section: 240 (1), 240 (2) (3), 241, 243, 241 (2)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 112
P L D 1956 Supreme Court (Pak.) 331 Leave to appeal to Federal (Supreme) Court-Ground ---- Question affecting service rights of indefinite number of persons and case involving substantial questions of law of wide importance--- Leave granted-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.112. Special leave to appeal in this case was granted on the ground that the judgment of the appellate Court affected the service rights not only of the seven appellants but also of an indefinite number of persons and that the case involved substantial questions of law of wide importance affecting the rights of public servants. Government of India Act, 1933, Ss. 240 (2) (3), 241 and 243-Safeguards of subsections (2) and (3) of S. 240 apply to Police Officers of subordinate ranks unless they are taken away by Police Acts. The constitutional safeguards in subsections,(2) and (3) of section 240, Government of India Act, 1935, are available to 9olice officers of subordinate ranks unless those safeguards have been taken away by or under a Police Act. This result is con sistent with the words of section 243 because if the intention had been that sections 240 and 241 were not at all to apply to subordinate police, nothing would have been easier than plainly to say so. The case of Suraj Narain Anand (P L D 1949 P C 1), is an instance of the application to a member of the subordinate police force of certain provisions contained in section 240, in the absence of any provision on that point under section 243. The language of section 243 is designed to operate on the basis of repugnancy between section 240 (2) (3) on one hand and the Rules under the Police Acts on the other. Therefore, the provisions of sections 240 and 241 have no application where there' is in existence a contrary or repugnant rule made applicable to subordinate ranks of the Police forces by or under the Act& relating to such forces. The opening words of section 243 "Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this chapter" are significant. They mean that the constitutional guarantees contained in the foregoing sections,…