Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 254 1981 SLD 254 1981 SCMR 325
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1454 of 1980, decision dated: 21st December, 1980. (On appeal from the Judgment of Lahore High Court dated 16-9-1980 in I: C. A. No. 520 of 1980)
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, JJ
Mumtaz Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.

ABDUL HAMEED KHAN

VS

WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND another

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---- Art. 199 read with West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17(1)(6) and Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss. 3 & 4-Compulsory retirement-Writ petition ­Jurisdiction - Order of compulsory retirement - Case challenging such order, held, involves determination of disputed questions of fact not capable of decision without recording evidence-Alternative remedy by way of appeal to Service Tribunal being available, Service Tribunal proper authority for examination of grievance-All pleas of facts and law raised by petitioner being entertain able by such forum, exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by High Court in such regard, held, not justified. [Civil services-Jurisdiction] ORDER ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench of Lahore High Court dated 16-9-1980 by which petitioner's appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge of the same High Court was dismissed. The learned Single Judge in the High Court lead dismissed Writ Petition No. 2824-S of 1980, filed by the petitioner by which he called in question the order of his compulsory retirement from service dated 7-5-1980. The reason that has prevailed with the learned Single Judge was that an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Service Tribunal was available to the petitioner under the provisions of section 17(1-B) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, to challenge the impugned order compulsorily retiring him from service and since the case involved determination of disputed questions of fact which made it necessary to record evidence .and this could be performed by the Tribunal constituted by law to determine such disputes, the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, was not available to the petitioner. Learned Judges of the Division Bench confirmed this view and dismissed the appeal. Mr. Mumtaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that serious questions-of law were raised before the High Court, and since the order challenged was totally without jurisdiction,…
🔒
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