Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 2223 1989 SLD 2223 1989 PLC 485
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Appeal No. 167(L) of 1984, decided on 7th February, 1989.
CH. HASAN NAWAZ AND 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

KHALID FAROOQ

VS

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WAPDA

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978-- ---Rr. 4 & 5--Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4--Termination of services--Order of termination was passed by Authority on 27-1-1982--Appeal filed against such order on 20-5-1984 was time-barred. (b) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978-- ---Rr. 4 & 5--Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4--Termination of services--Appeal filed beyond limitation--Condonation of delay--Justification for-­Employee had been pursuing his remedy before wrong forums and was successful in getting the desired relief--Employer, however, succeeded before High Court in Constitutional petition setting aside reinstatement orders of wrong forums on the ground that employee being a Government servant was governed by Service Tribunals Act in matters of appeal--Employee instead of seeking his remedy before Service Tribunal applied for review of before High Court--No justification existed for the review petition and he should have instituted appeal without further delay--No explanation having been rendered by employee for condonation of delay, which came about after he had come to know of High Court decision, delay was not condoned and appeal being time-barred was dismissed. Tariq Masood for Appellant. Kh. Fahim Ijaz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th February, 1989. JUDGMENT CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).--The appellant was appointed as LDC/Meter Reader on 15-4-1981 by the respondent, on the accepted condition that he shall remain on probation for a period of one year in the first instance and that his services are liable to termination without previous notice, irrespective of whether the period of probation had not expired, if it is found that his work or conduct during that period is unsatisfactory. (Annex. R-I). 2. On 12-1-1982, he was served with a notice where it was alleged that on checking of his area it had been found by the S.D.O. concerned that the meter readings were defective; that large number of units had been put in accumulation against the interests, of the Authority and that his work had not…
🔒
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