Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NASEER AHMED VS Respondent: SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI
1999 P L C (C
1999 P L C (C. S.) 323
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif JJ
Haji NASEER AHMED
versus
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and another
Civil Petition No. 1499‑L of 1997, decided on 30th July, 1998
(On appeal from the order dated 10‑9‑1997 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 138‑L of 1991).
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil service ‑‑‑Re instatement‑‑‑Appeal filed by civil servant was resolved by Service Tribunal with a direction to re‑instate civil servant and decide question of his benefits for intervening period‑‑‑Authorities 'implemented directions of Service Tribunal, including payment for benefits for half of intervening period‑‑ Civil servant in his miscellaneous petition had contended that decision in appeal did not talk about full payment to civil servant for intervening period‑‑‑Service Tribunal disposed of miscellaneous petition with observation that order made in appeal had been implemented and civil servant had, no right to ask Service Tribunal to re‑do entire case and that civil servant could seek other remedy if so advised‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal which was also barred by eight days and no plausible explanation was made for condonation of such delay, was dismissed in circumstances.
Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents
Date of hearing: 30th July, 1998
ORDER
CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.‑‑‑The petitioner has made this petition with a view to challenge the order dated 10‑9‑1997 passed by the Service Tribunal in a Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 1997 in Appeal No. 138‑L of 1991 mainly on the ground that the order made in the main appeal had been implemented and the petitioner had no right to ask the Tribunal to re‑do the entire case.
2. Only ground taken on merits is that the application of the petitioner in Appeal No. 138‑L of 1991 was competent as the decision in the main appeal did not talk about full payment to the petitioner for the intervening period. We are afraid the plea being raised is sans merit. The main appeal was resolved by Service Tribunal with a direction to re‑instate the petitioner and decide the question of benefits for the intervening period. The respondents implemented the above directions, including payment of benefits for half of the intervening period. The Tribunal is quite right‑in disposing of petitioner's miscellaneous application with the observation that he may seek other remedy, if so advised.
3. The instant application is also beyond time by 8 days and the plea taken by the petitioner for condonation of delay is that copy of the impugned order was not despatched to the petitioner by the Service Tribunal. This circumstance is of little help to him in that the decision in miscellaneous application was made in the presence of his learned counsel. No ground has even so much as been urged to explain the delay of each day. Looked at from whatever angle, no case for grant of leave has been made out. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused.
H.B.T./N‑35/S Petition dismissed