Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KAMAL UD DIN And Others VS Respondent: THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Nasim Hasan Shah, Aslam Riaz Hussain Title: KAMAL UD DIN And Others vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Another Case No.: Civil Review Petition No. 8 of 1984 C.P.S.L.A. No.1377 of 1983 Date of Judgment:1986-11-15 Reported As: 1987 SCMR 182 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The Service Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondents vide order dated 17-5-1982. This order was challenged in this Court by the respondents herein through a petition for leave (C.P.S.L.A. No.593 of 1982). This petition was dismissed by this Court on 8-12-1982. The judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 17-5-1982 was, thereafter, given effect to but was implemented with effect from 8-12-1982, viz. The date of the dismissal of the leave petition by this Court. The petitioners again moved the Service Tribunal with the prayer that they were entitled to the benefit of its order dated 17th May, 1982 as from 1-3-1972, namely, the date when the National Pay Scales were introduced and not from 8-12-1982. This petition was dismissed by the Service Tribunal and the petition for leave (C.P.S.L.A. No.1377/83) directed against this order, before this Court, was also rejected on 29-2-1984. This is a petition, for review of the last-mentioned order of this Court dated 29-2-1984. The submission of the petitioners is that if the appeal against the trial Court's judgment is dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court upheld by the appellate Court in extenso, the judgment of the trial Court remains the operative judgment and relief must be accorded from the date of the trial Court's judgment. Hence the petitioners were entitled, at any rate, to relief as from 17th May, 1982, when the Service Tribunal passed its order and the action of the Provincial Government in allowing relief to them as from 8-12-1982, the date when this Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, is an error patent on the face of the record. The point now being agitated before us was not raised in this Court when Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1377 of 1983 was heard and the order, dated 29-2-1984 passed. Hence no
---
## Page 2
ground for review exists. However, the submission on the legal plane that if any order of the trial Court is not interfered with by the appellate Court and the appeal preferred against it is dismissed the said order of the trial Court is to be deemed as the operative order, is correct. The petitioners can approach the Government and pray for implementation of the order of the Service Tribunal from 17th May, 1982, if so advised. With these observations this review petition is dismissed.