Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLG 1114 1996 SLD 1114 1996 SCMR 273
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 309 of 1993, decision dated: 15-11-1995
SALEEM AKHTAR, MAMOON KAZI AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ
Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court

Mst. SAMRA ASHFAQ

GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary S & GAD, .Peshawar and 2 others..

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil service--Increment---Finance Department's Circular, whereby persons in Government service failing w. specified category were entitled to receive advance increments---Civil servant having M. Phil. Degree in Psychology claimed herself to be scientist, thus, falling within the term scientist as mentioned in the circular ---Civil servant's pl- was rejected by Finance Department and her appeal was dismissed by Service Tribunal on ground of jurisdiction and limitation-.-Service Tribunal expressed its view that civil service being social scientist fell within category of scientists as mentioned in circular question-.-Validity ---Civil servant by virtue of her position as Psychologist was required to perform technical job observing and analysing speed person's bent of mind and behaviour and to determine his aptitude for a discipline or service---Such job being highly technical was directly involved with social science requiring investigation, study and observation not only in theoretical sense but in practical form as well---Civil servant was thus, scientist failing within category of scientists as mentioned in the relevant Finance Department's Circular. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--S.4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212---Advance increments--­Entitlement--- Service Tribunal dismissed civil servant's appeal on ground of limitation and jurisdiction---Civil servant fell within the category of those who were entitled to claim speed increments---Such claim was, this, covered by terms and conditions of service and Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to proceed in the matter---Service Tribunal had dismissed civil servant's appeal mainly on technical ground of limitation---Civil servant, therefore could not get her remedy on technical ground of laches---Supreme Court observed that Authority should review the case of civil servant irrespective of the fact that civil servant had failed on technical ground alone.---[Jurisdiction--Limitation].. Crawford's Construction of Statutes p. 328; Shorter Oxford English Dictionary; Ballentine's . Law Dictionary; International Encydopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vols. 13=.14; American Heritage Dictionary of the…
🔒
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