Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: JUNAID AHMAD KHAN VS Respondent: CHIEF ENGINEER and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Rafique Tarar, Manzoor Hussain Sial, Saad Saood Jan Title: JUNAID AHMAD KHAN vs CHIEF ENGINEER and others Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 1209-L of 1992 Appeal No, 226 of 1990 Date of Judgment:1994-03-30 Reported As: 1995 SCMR 697 Result: Leave refused
Judgment ORDER ' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from order dated 1-2-1992 5t the Punjab Service Tribunal, passed in Appeal No, 226/1990. ' The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Junior Clerk, in 1982, in the office of the Executive Engineer, Highway Division, Sargodha, on regular basis, whereas the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 were appointed on ad hoc basis. In the seniority list issued by the Superintendent Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha, on 18-10-1985, the petitioner was shown junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 8. He made representation to the departmental authority but of no avail. Ultimately he filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was dismissed on 6-10-1990, for non-prosecution. The petitioner moved application for restoration of the appeal on 4-11-1990, but that too was dismissed on 17-3-1991, for non-prosecution. Thereafter he filed an application for restoration of that petition which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 1-2-1992. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the absence of the petitioner and his counsel to prosecute the appeal which was dismissed in default as also the application for restoration of the petition dismissed in default, was not intentional. We have, however, noticed that the petitioner has been negligent in prosecuting the appeal as well as the application for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default. ' In our view, no substantial question of public importance is involved, in this case so as to strict the jurisdiction of this Court for interference in the matter. Resultantly, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss it.