Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD QUDDUS RAJA VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
1988 S C M R 1858
1988 S C M R 1858
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
MUHAMMAD QUDDUS RAJA‑‑Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.788 of 1987, decided on 5th July, 1988.
(From the ‑judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 2‑9‑1987, passed in Appeal No.310/1032 of 1986).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S.12(ii)‑ Retirement from service after completing 25 years qualifying for pension/other retirement benefits‑‑Appeal of petitioner before Service Tribunal failed‑‑Order impugned‑‑Appellate Authority having properly examined case of petitioner and no question of public importance having been raised, leave to appeal refused.
Riaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑ on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th July, 1988.
ORDER
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 2‑9‑1987, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Enforcement Inspector on 6‑10‑1958. He was then promoted to NPS 16 in 1966. He was further promoted as Assistant Director Industries in NPS 17 in 1981. It was on 31‑3‑1'986 when the petitioner was retired from service through a 'notification under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
3. The petitioner 'impugned the order of his retirement before the Punjab Service Tribunal through an appeal but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgment of the Service Tribunal and we do not see any merit in the petition inasmuch as the appellate authority has properly examined the case of the petitioner and did not oblige him A with any favourable decision. Since, no question of law of public importance has been raised in this petition, the same is dismissed.
M. I. /M‑535/5 Petition dismissed.