Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,LAHORE VS Respondent: MUSHTAQ AHMAD
1988 S C M R 1793
1988 S C M R 1793
Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.1078 of 1981, decided on 13th July, 1988.
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 24‑9‑1981 in Appeal No.152/722 of 1980).
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.4 & 5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑Entitlement to Secretariat Pay‑‑Order of Service Tribunal granting partial relief impugned‑‑Plea that Tribunal had acted contrary to law and evidence in giving partial relief to respondent, repelled‑‑Impugned judgment having been passed after thorough examination of merits and record of case and no specific error of law or question of public importance requiring examination by. Supreme Court having been pointed out, leave to appeal refused.
Sh.Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-to‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 13th July, 1988.
ORDER
GHULAM NIUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑‑Secretary to Government of Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore; Member (Establishment) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and Accountant‑General, Punjab, Lahore seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 24‑9‑1981.
The Tribunal on the appeal of respondent Mushtaq Ahmad held that he was not entitled to the Secretariat pay scale from 1‑5‑1963 to 31‑5‑1964. The Tribunal further. observed "otherwise it is his due and right being a person working in the BOR". The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent was not entitled to even this much of relief.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the Tribunal acted contrary to law and evidence in giving partial relief to the respondent.
We don't think it is so. The Tribunal after thorough examination of the merits and going through the relevant dates of the respondent'? career passed the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to point out any specific error of law or question of public importance which, requires examination by this Court.
It is not a fit case for leave to appeal.
M.I./S‑179/S Petition dismissed.