Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 2220 1989 SLD 2220 1989 PLC 479
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Miscellaneous Petition No. 37 of 1956 in Appeal No. 20(L) of 1980, decided on 28th February, 1989.
CH. HASAN NAWAZ AID KH. ABDUL, JALIL, MEMBERS

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

Rao ABDUR RASHID

VS

THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT CABINET SECRETARIAT, RAWALPINDI

Law:

Section:

(a) Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974-- ---R. 19(3)--Application for restoration of appeal--Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution on 7-12-1983--Appeal had been fixed for hearing on 6-12-1983 which applicant had notice--Applicant's non-appearance was due; to his detention under orders of Martial. Law Authority--Appal could have been dismissed 0â-ž 6-12-198 which was la fixed date and for which civil servant had notice--Order passed on next day viz. 7-12-1983 was nullity in law because applicant had no notice and that was certainly not a date of hearing--Application for restoration of appeal was thus allowed. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)- ---S. 7---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 12--Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974, R. 19(3)--Application for restoration. of appeal dismissed for non­ prosecution--Laches--Discretion of Tribunal--Exercise of--No limitation has been prescribed for riling application for restoration of appeal--Only Ss. 5 & 12 of Limitation Act were applicable to proceedings before Service Tribunal-Applicant was under detention at the time of dismissal of his appeal--Applicant, on coming out of jail tried to make, application for restoration of his appeal but could not do so due to embargo placed by Martial Law Authorities on Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal--Applicant, however, after proclamation of withdrawal of Martial Law, made application for restoration of his appeal--Applicant thus could not be deemed to be guilty of laches viz. negligence or undue delay, such as to disentitle him to remedy--Applicant had been vigilant in the pursuit of his matter and no unwanton, undue and deliberate carelessness or disregard could be attributed to him as could possibly attract the mischief of principle of laches, so :is to disentitle him to a favourable exercise of discretion given to the Tribunal under R. 19(3) of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974--Grant of application for restoration of appeal, would be a reasonable and judicial exercise of discretion, in circumstances. (c) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)-- ---Ss. 4 & 5(2)--Civil Procedure Code (V of l908), S. 151--Service Tribunal, for purpose 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