Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHAMMAD SAFDAR versus DIRECTOR, ARMY EDUCATION


The merits of the Article 199 written petition argue that the applicant, who is a retired youth related petitioner, is eligible for writ petition, in addition to being able to appeal to the Service Tribunal, as well as the preparation of evidence on the facts and law. Through the matter, the evidence is clear and substantive. An alternative alternative is appropriate, so under the circumstances, the writ petition is not eligible
P L D 1981 Lahore 444

Before Abdul Shakurul Salam, J

MUHAMMAD SAFDAR-Petitioner

versus

DIRECTOR, ARMY EDUCATION ETC.-Respondents

Writ Petition No. 4007/S of 1980, decided on 22nd September, 1980.

Constitution of Pakistan (19'73)-

Art. 199-Writ petition-Competency-Contention that notwithstanding an appeal being competent before Service Tribunal, petitioner having teen retired mala fide, writ petition competent-Held, besides tenuous basis of allegation of mala fides, matter being appealable and determinable by production of evidence on facts and law alternate remedy adequate, hence writ petition not competent, in circumstances.

Federation of Pakistan through The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan etc. P L h .1974 S C 151 ref.

'Shahid Hussain Kadri for Potitioner.

JUDGEMENT

Petitioner was retired from service under the provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1973 on 8-4-1980 w. e. f. 9-11-1979. He filed this Constitutional Petition on 24-4-1980 contending, inter alia, that he could not be retired with retrospective, effect. On 26-I-1980 a report was called for from the respondent authority. The latter withdrew the earlier order dated 8-4-1980 and passed another order dated 28-4-1930 probably becoming aware of the filing of the writ petition by amending the previous order dated 8-4-1980 and making the retirement prospective from 28-4-1980. The petition has come up for hearing today.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that notwithstanding that an appeal could be filed before the Service Tribunal this petition is competent because the petitioner has been retired mala fide. He has relied on Federation of Pakistan through The Secretary, Establishment Division Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan etc. (PLD 1974 SC 151).

3. Besides the tenuous basis of the allegation of mala fide, the matter which is appealable, where it cart be determined by production of evidence on facts and law, and the alternate remedy being adequate, the writ petition is not competent in the circumstances of the case.

4. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in this petition and the case is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
jobs for advocates from Saidu Sharif lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.