Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL RAUF VS Respondent: ENGINEER STORES DEPOT, LAHORE CANTT
1991 P L C (C
1991 P L C (C.S.) 309
[Lahore High Court]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
ABDUL RAUF
Versus
ENGINEER STORES DEPOT, LAHORE CANTT.
Civil Revision No. 814 of 1977, heard on 2nd February, 1991.
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)---
----S. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court, exercise of---Petitioner filed suit against order of suspension which was decreed by Trial Court but dismissed by Appellate Court on the ground that proper forum to agitate the matter was Service Tribunal---Appeal of employee filed against dismissal order was already dismissed by Service Tribunal and then by Supreme Court---In absence of any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in judgment and decree of Court below, discretionary revisional power, held, could not be exercised in favour of petitioner.
Safi Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Aftab Iqbal Ch., Deputy Attorney-General for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1991.
JUDGMENT
Abdul Rauf petitioner was lower division clerk in the office of Engineer Stores Depot, Lahore Cantt. He was suspended on 18-2-1974. Feeling aggrieved thereby, he filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order of his suspension was illegal, void and without jurisdiction, because the same was not renewed after every three months according to the relevant law. The suit was decreed ex parte. The Government of Pakistan, respondent, filed an
appeal, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge on 7-6-1977 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit. The learned Appellate Court was of the view that the petitioner being a civil servant should have approached the Service Tribunal, hence this revision.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner was dismissed from service. His appeal before the Service Tribunal was dismissed. The appeal filed by him against the order of the Service Tribunal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.
3. The learned counsel submits that since the petitioner was in service and the suspension order was not renewed after three months, so he was/is entitled to the salary for the period of his suspension till he was dismissed from service.
4. The relief in a revision petition being discretionary in nature, I do not feel inclined to exercise the revisional powers in this case for the reasons that the petitioner has not only been dismissed from service but his appeal has also been dismissed by Service Tribunal and Supreme Court of Pakistan. Even otherwise, no exception can be taken to the reasons given by the learned Appellate Court for the acceptance of appeal against the order of the trial Court. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and decree.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./A-1194/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.