Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 5299 = 1966 SLD 5299 = 1966 PLD 576,570
Dacca High Court
Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 289 of 1962, decided on 26th May 1965.
Presented By: S. M. Murshed, C. J. and Abu Md. Abdulla, J
Md. Jani Alam, Assistant Government Pleader for Appellant.   Ruhul Islam and Mukhtar Hussain for
Respondent.

PAKISTAN-Defendant-Appellant  

VERSUS

  GOLAM MOINUDDIN AHMED-Respondent

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 79,80

Law: Constitution of Pakistan (1956)

Section: 181

Law: Government of India Act, 1935

Section: 240(3)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 177

(NOTE: Wrongly 2 citations added in PLD.Both are mentioned.)  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 79 read with Con stitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 136 and Laws (Continuance in Force) Order (I of 1958)-Provisions merely procedural-Expres sion "shall be" in S. 79, C. P. C. not mandatory-Suit against Government-Describing defendant-Government as "the Govern ment of Pakistan" instead of merely "Pakistan"-Not of great consequence.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 79 & 80-Govern ment servant-Suit against Government-Relief claimed in notice that of "re-instatement" but prayer in plaint for "declaration that plaintiff continued to be in service"-Circumstance no ground for dismissing suit.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 80-Notice addressed to "Secretary to Government" instead of "Pakistan"-Not invalid.   Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 181 and Government of India Act, 1935, S. 240 (3)-Government servant-Termination of services-Government servant, whether permanent or temporary, entitled to opportunity of showing cause against proposed action -Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 177.   Golam Sarwar v; Pakistan P L D 1962 S C 142 fol.  JUDGMENT ABDULLA, J.-This Second Appeal has been preferred by the Central Government against the judgment and decree passed in appeal by a Subordinate Judge of Chittagong.   The Government was the defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiff -respondent for declaration that the termination of plaintiff's services under the defendant was illegal and the plain tiff had been in the eye of law continuing in his service.   The plaintiff's case was that he was appointed on 2nd July 1943 by the Government of India as Deputy Assistant Controller of Purchase in the Ministry of Industries and Supplies, New- Delhi. His services, were placed under the Director of Civil Supplies, Delhi and he continued there till partition. He bad exercised his option for Pakistan and pending the final and formal acceptance of the said option he continued in his post under the Delhi Administration till 8-9-47 when due to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register