Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2820 2010 SLD 2820 2010 SCMR 1399
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals No. 537 and 538 of 2006, decision dated: 16-03-2010
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J CH. IJAZ AHMED AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, 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

CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others

VS

. NAWAB KHAN and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Fundamental Rules-------R. 22(a)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether civil servant was entitled to have protection of previous service in another organization for the purposes of fixation and counting of previous service for pension. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Arts. 189 & 190---Judgment of Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Arts. 189 and 190 of the Constitution. (c) Fundamental Rules--- ----R. 22(a)---Hand Book for Drawing and Disbursing Officers, Chapter, IX, R. 9.6(v)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(2) & (3)---Pay and pensionary benefits---Previous service, counting of--Absence of lien on previous post---Findings of fact---Interference by Supreme Court---Scope---Appellant was appointed by another government organization and his grievance was that his previous service in earlier government organization was to be counted for fixation of pay and pensionary benefits---Service Tribunal partially allowed the appeal and did not grant any protection of his pay drawn during previous appointment---Validity---Finding of fact recorded by Service Tribunal was in consonance with rules on the subject and law laid down by Supreme Court---Service Tribunal had rightly refused second relief to appellant in terms of R.22(a) of Fundamental Rules---Parties failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the passed by Service Tribunal and no question of public importance as contemplated under Art.212(2) of the Constitution was raised---Finding of Service Tribunal was finding of fact and could not call for any interference by Supreme Court while exercising power under Art.212(3) of the Constitution---Constitutional jurisdiction was always discretionary in character as the Service Tribunal had decided the case within the parameters and rules on the subject and law laid down by Supreme Court, therefore, Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretion under Art.212(3) of the Constitution in favour of appellants---Appeal was dismissed. Nafees Ahmad's case 2000 SCMR 1864 and Ch. Muhammad Azim's case 1991 SCMR 255 rel. Dil…
🔒
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