Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2598 2006 SLD 2598 2006 SCMR 989
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P. No.2361-L of 2004, decision dated: 6-04-2006 (On appeal from order, dated 9-6-2004 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Service Appeal No.386 of 2004)
FALAK SHER AND, CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JJ

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

MUHAMMADIJAZULHAQ

VS

EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER and others

Law:

Section:

(a). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-------Art. 212(3)---Civil service---Secondary School Teacher during his service acquired Master's degree (Urdu) and applied for grant of three advance increments for possessing higher academic qualification in accordance with para.15 of the Government Policy dated 25-8-1983---Validity---Held, if the relevant notifications and the Rules were put in juxtaposition, it was clear that the teacher, was not entitled to advance increments after securing qualification in M.A. (Urdu) which had already been declared equivalent to M.Ed. coupled with the fact that for the initial recruitment for the post in question the competent authority had prescribed qualification of M.Ed. in the year 1987 whereas the teacher had secured qualification of M.A.(Urdu) in the year 2001. (b). Interpretation of statutes--- ----If the word is not defined in the Rules, then the meaning of the word must be understood as defined in the dictionary---Dictionary meaning is relevant to understand intention of the policy maker---Principles. (c). Words & phrases--- ----"Higher" meaning. Chambers English Dictionary ref. (d). Interpretation of statutes--- ----Court cannot add any word in the rules/notifications as the court has only jurisdiction to interpret law. (e)Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 212(3)---Supreme Court, normally would not interfere in the concurrent conclusions of the Tribunal below while exercising power under Art.212(3) of the Constitution---Where the petitioner had failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance as contemplated in Art.212(3) of the Constitution, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.Zia-ur-Rehman's case PLD 1973 SC 49; Hakim Ali's case PLD 1992 SC 595; Mian Nawaz Sharif's case PLD 1993 SC 473; Zamir Ahmad Khan's case PLD 1975 SC 667; Zamir Ahmad Khan's case 1978 SCMR 327; Javaid Aziz Qureshi's case 1998 SCMR 2553 and Maqbool Ahmad Khan's case 2001 SCMR 1909 ref.Muhammad Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th April, 2006. ORDER CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- Brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that petitioner secured…
🔒
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