Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAFDAR ALI RANDHAWA VS Respondent: SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Saleem Akhter, Shafi-ur-Rehman Title:SAFDAR ALI RANDHAWA vs SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE
and 2 others Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 654-L of 1992 Appeal No, 125 of 1989 Date of Judgment:1993-11-23 Reported As: 1994 SCMR 1664 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 3-8-1991 dismissing the service appeal of the petitioner as withdrawn. 2. The petitioner retired from the service on completion of 25 years of service by reference to clause (ii) of Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, on 7-5-1986. He appealed against his retirement but it was dismissed on 13-4-1987. He preferred a second appeal on 19-9-1987 which was dismissed on 5-7-1989. This second appeal was addressed to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore. The reason for filing a second appeal not warranted in the Rules of service was provided by submitting that the post which the petitioner was holding before his retirement stood upgraded and his promotion had been ante-dated entitling him to prefer an appeal to the Secretary of the Government. On dismissal of the appeal he came before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has recorded that he had withdrawn his service appeal. The petitioner states that in fact he had not withdrawn the appeal, and that he wanted to press it. He relies on the judgment in the domain of Shariat whereby .This provision or such provisions empowering the Government to retire without show-cause notice have been held to be un-islamic and ultra-vices. 3. From the facts stated, even if we ignore what the Service Tribunal has recorded about the departmental appeal having been withdrawn by the petitioner himself, his appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred because to the Secretary to the Government and waiting for his order and then there was no justification for the petitioner preferring the second appeal coming to the Service Tribunal. He should have, after filing first appeal within period specified, approached the
---
## Page 2
Service Tribunal. Besides, the decisions in the Shariat jurisdiction have not been given retrospective effect. 4. No case is made out for interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.