| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1169 2004 SLD 1169 2004 SCMR 1315 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Review Petition No.268 of 2000 in Civil Petition No.737 of 2000, decision dated: 28th May. 2004
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A. G Punjab for
Respondent
Civil Review Petition No.268 of 2000 in Civil Petition No.737 of 2000, decision dated: 28th May. 2004
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A. G Punjab for
Respondent
Syed SHAUKAT IQBAL
VS
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
Law:
Section:
(a) Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963--- R. 1.8(a) Scope of R.1.8(a), Punjab Civil Services, Pension Rules, 1963 Rule 1.8(a) speaks about institution of proceedings and has got no concern with the service notice upon the Civil Servant Only mandatory prerequisite as embodied in R.1.8(a) seems to be that fair opportunity of hearing must be afforded. Muhammad Said Khan v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1969 Pesh. 147; Sultan Muhammad Naeem Khan v. Chief Secretary to Government of West Pakistan PLD 1969 Pesh. 237; Government of N. W.F.P. v. Muhammad Said Khan PLD 1973 SC 514; Province of Punjab v. Syed Munir Hussain Shah 1998 SCMR 1326; Malik Ehsanul Haq v. Government of the Punjab 1994 PLC (C.S.) 454; Muhammad Hafeezur Rehman Hashmi v. Secretary, Finance Department 1988 PLC (C.S.) 245; Farooq Ahmed Khan v. Government of Punjab 1996 PLC (C.S.) 817; Syed Munir Hussain Shah v. Secretary, Livestock Government of the Punjab 1995 PLC (C.S.) 943; Abdul Aziz Virk v Secretary, Education (Schools) 2001 PLC (C.S.) 661 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 188 Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXV Review of Supreme, Court All the points raised at the time of arguing review petition were dilated upon, discussed and decided in a comprehensive manner Review petition was dismissed. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 188 Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O XXVI Review of Supreme Court Scope Review petition is not competent where neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record Such error may be an error of fact or of law but the same must be self evident and floating on surface and not requiring any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination. Master Tahilram v. Lilaram 1970 SCMR 622; Abdul Khaliq Qureshi v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner 1968 SCMR 800; Rehmatullah v. Abdul Majid 1968 SCMR 838; Hassan Din v. Claim Commissioner, Lahore 1968 SCMR 1047(2) Qamar Din v. Maula Bakhsh 1968 SCMR 1042(1); Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 SCMR 418 and Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begun 1968 SCMR 104 ref. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) -- Art. 188 Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI…
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