Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

2006 PLC(CS) 88

Lt.Cdr., (Rtd.P.N.) ENGINEER ABDUL AZIZ NAREJO vs KARACHI PORT TRUST and 2 others

Petitioner: Lt.Cdr., (Rtd.P.N.) ENGINEER ABDUL AZIZ NAREJO VS Respondent: KARACHI PORT TRUST and 2 others

Court: Sindh High Court Decision Date: 2005-04-20

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Sabihuddin Ahmed, Maqbool Baqar Title:Lt.Cdr., (Rtd.P.N.) ENGINEER ABDUL AZIZ NAREJO vs KARACHI PORT TRUST and

2 others Case No.: Constitutional Petition No,1266-D of 2003 Date of Judgment:2005-04-20 Reported As: 2006 PLC (C.S.) 88 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.---The matter apparently relates to terms and conditions of service it is however, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only seeking, direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner's departmental appeal which was preferred in August, 1996, but remained undecided despite repeated reminders till 2003 when this petition was filed. 2. We are afraid in our view such direction cannot be issued section 4(1) read with proviso (A) to Service Tribunals Act, 1973, clearly stipulates that even appeal against an original order is maintainable provided one preferred to a departmental authority has remained undecided for a period of 90 days. Indeed the petitioner was entitled to move the Federal Service Tribunal within 120 days from the date he preferred a departmental appeal in August, 1996 an alternate remedy being available under the law which completely oust our jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, we regret we cannot entertain this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Nevertheless the petitioner may approach the competent Service Tribunal which will indeed consider the question of granting the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner. At the same time we express our strong disapproval of the delay caused by the respondents in deciding the appeal which could possibly lead to inference of mala fide in a given case. Nevertheless we express no opinion on this question.

Related Legal Research & Directories