Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
1997 P L C (C
1997 P L C (C.S) 1175
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Ajmal Mian and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and another
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2333/L of 1996, decided on 8th January, 1997. ,
(On appeal from the order dated 11‑12‑1996 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No. 1681 of 1996).
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Repatriation of civil servant to his parent department‑‑‑Service Tribunal's interim order for suspension of .repatriation order was subsequently recalled ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Appeal against order of repatriation was still pending‑‑‑Suspension order was recalled as it was done in other similar cases‑‑‑No exception could be taken to impugned order‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th January, 1997
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 11‑12‑1996 passed by Member‑I of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 1681 of 1996, filed by the petitioner against the order of his repatriation dated 24‑11‑1996 to his parent department from the post of Sub‑Divisional Officer, Zila Council, Sialkot, recalling the interlocutory order dated 26‑11‑1.996 suspending the above order of repatriation. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal
2. In support of the above petition Hafiz Tariq Nasim, warned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the above order of suspension dated 26‑11‑1996 was passed by the Chairman and the aforesaid appeal was assigned to Member‑11 by the Chairman, Member‑I was not entitled to recall the above suspension order particularly when the case could not have been listed before him. However, he was unable to point out any rule, whereby the above appeal was marked by the Chairman to Member‑11 as contended by the petitioner.
3. It is an admitted position that the above appeal is still pending the above suspension order was recalled as it was done in other similar cases. We are, therefore, of the view that no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Leave is refused.
A.A/M.3371/S Leave refused.