| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 819 2004 SLD 819 2004 SCMR 18 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos.3937-L of 2001, 3980-L of 2001, 106-L to 109-L of 2002 and 618-L to 620-L of 2002, decision dated: 26-05-2003
JAVED IQBAL AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Malik Amjad Pervaiz; Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umer, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. (in C.P. No. 3937-L of 2001).Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.3980L of 2001
Civil Petitions Nos.3937-L of 2001, 3980-L of 2001, 106-L to 109-L of 2002 and 618-L to 620-L of 2002, decision dated: 26-05-2003
JAVED IQBAL AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Malik Amjad Pervaiz; Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umer, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. (in C.P. No. 3937-L of 2001).Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.3980L of 2001
MUHAMMAD AFZAL
VS
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil service-----Pro forma promotion---Petitioners claimed such promotion, on analogy of officers junior to them, who had already secured pro forma promotion through s of Service Tribunal---Departmental representation and appeal before Service Tribunal were dismissed--¬Validity ---Petitioners had not challenged such s, whereby not only their juniors had been promoted, but their inter se seniority had been disturbed---Such s had attained finality irrespective of fact, whether those were in consonance with law or not---Such s had been implemented in letter and spirit and valuable rights had accrued in favour of others---If prayer of petitioners was accepted, then they would become senior to few hundreds of their senior colleagues, who had not been impleaded as party and would be adversely affected---Such petitions were, thus, not competent---Petitioner's contention that such s being s in personam were not applicable to their case, was repelled---No question of law of public importance was involved--¬Supreme Court dismissed petitions and refused to grant leave to appeal. Pir Bakhsh v. Chairman, Allotment Committee PLD 1987 SC 145; Muhammad Sohail v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 1996 SCMR 218 and M.A. Rashid Rana v. Secretary Home, Government of Punjab 1996 SCMR 1145 rel. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)----- ---S.4---Original departmental representation/appeal/review barred by time---Appeal before Service Tribunal---Condonation of delay--¬Principles. If original representation was barred by time and aggrieved employee did not disclose sufficient cause for such delay or inability to move Departmental Authority within prescribed period, then no subsequent order of disposal of such incompetent representation/ appeal/review could create-fresh cause of action or automatically operate to condone delay of limitation in availing remedy under section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Abdul Wahid v. Chairman, Central Board of Revenue 1998 SCMR 882; Aziz Ahmed v. Secretary to Government of Pakistan 1985 SCMR 368; WAPDA v. Aurangzeb 1988 SCMR 1354; Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Azim Khan 1989 SCMR 1271; 1982 SCMR 582; Muhammad Hasham v. Inspector-General of Police…
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