Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 274 of 1967, decided on 10th October 1967.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 29th May 1967, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 391‑S of 1967 and order dated the 10th January 1967, in Writ Petition No. 2081 of 1964).

Vol. I, r. 7.3 (a) & (b)‑Inter pretation‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider, question of interpretation of r. 7.3 (a) & (b).

Raja Said Akbar Khan, Advocate‑General West Pakistan (Muhammad Bashir, Assistant Advocate‑General with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Petitioner.

Muhammad Shafi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan, Senior Attorney for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 10th October 1967.

This petition is barred by time by 116 days.

The learned Advocate‑General has pointed out that the petition for a certificate that this was a fit case for appeal to this Court was dismissed by the High Court on 29‑5‑67, an application for certified copy of the order was made on the same day but it vas delivered on 28‑6‑67 and thereafter the petition for special leave was filed on 19‑7‑67. As the petitioner is not guilty of negligence or laches, we condone the delay.

The respondent Mian Muhammad Hayat, a Superintending Engineer in the Irrigation Branch of the P. W. D., was charge -sheeted and suspended from service. The charge‑sheet was, however, dropped and he was reinstated in service. He then prayed for salary for the period of suspension, i.e. from 8‑4‑63 to 5‑3‑64.

The Governor of West Pakistan being of the opinion that he was not honourably acquitted, rejected his prayer. He then moved a writ in the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court accepted the petition and ordered the Government to treat the petitioner's period of suspension from 8‑4‑63 to 5‑3‑63 as period spent on duty and allow him full pay which he was entitled to'.

The Government seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court.

The learned Advocate‑General has contended inter alia.

(1) that the respondent was not honourably acquitted within he meaning of Rule 7.3 (a) and (b) of Civil Service Rule (Punjab) Vol. I ;

(2) that in any event it was for the respondent to establish that he had been honourably acquitted ;

(3) that it was not a fit case for issue of a writ of mandamus

As the points raised involve interpretation of the Service Rules and also of Art. 98(2)(a) of the Constitution, which are of general public importance, we grant leave to appeal as prayed.

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.