Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 331 and 332 of 1967, decided on 10th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 4th July 1967, in Writ Petition No. 1799 of 1966).
S. 25‑Question of construction of S. 25‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
M. A. Zullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court Khalid M. Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Salim Ahmad Malik, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nasim Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Senior Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 10th October 1967.
‑This deals with Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 331 and 332 of 1967.
The High Court has in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution set aside the orders of the Chairman, Thal Development Authority, terminating the services of the respondents in the two petitions inter alia on the grounds that the orders were made in compliance with the directions of the Chairman, Agricultural Development Corporation; that the supervisory control entrusted to the said officer by the Provincial Government under section 25 of the West Pakistan Agricultural. Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961, suffered from excessive delegation and that the power to suspend and terminate the services of the employees of the Thal Develop ment Authority was vested in the Authority and not its Chairman alone.
The Chairman, Agricultural Development Corporation, seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court on the following grounds;
(i) The rule of excessive delegation did not apply to the powers conferred by the Provincial Government under section 25 of the Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961, on the Chairman in the Project area to supervise and control the management of the That Development Authority.
(ii), The Thal Development Authority had in terminating the services of the respondents acted in its own discretion and not under the directions of the Chairman, Agricultural Development Corporation.
(iii) The orders by the Chairman terminating the services of the respondents were duly confirmed by the Thal Development Authority.
(iv) The respondents were temporary employees and given three months' salary in lieu of notice under rule 5(2) of the rules framed under the Thal Development Act.
(v) The procedure for giving; show cause notice under rule 10 which deals with cases of removal from service for misconduct was not attracted.
The proper construction of the rules and the provisions‑ of section 25 the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corpora tion. Ordinance require consideration. We grant leave to appeal. Security in the sum of Rs. 1,000 in each case.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer