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 Petition No. 949 of 1981, decided on 22nd June, 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 7th July, 1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in I. C. A. No. 277/81).
‑‑ Arts. 185 (3) & 199 ‑ Writ jurisdiction ‑ Leave to appeal to Supreme Court‑Arrears of salary ‑Declaratory decree for arrears of salary‑Whether can be enforced and implemented through agency of writ petition‑Leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court to determine such question‑Arrears of salary‑Declaratory decree‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1887), S. 42.
Muhammad Yousaf Khan and others v. Pakistan Railway through Vice Chairman, P. R. and others 1972 S C M R 1 ref.
‑‑‑ S. 42‑Arrears of salary‑Question whether employee entitled to relief regarding payment of arrears of salary even if declaratory decree could have been passed by High Court‑Leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).
‑‑3 [as amended by Law Reforms (Amendment) Act (VIII of 1972] Inter‑Court Appeal‑Competency‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court Granted to consider contention that view of High Court as to intra Court appeal being not competent was a misreading, misinterpretation and misconstruction of S. 3‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).
Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh, Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qadri, Advocate on Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 22nd June, 1982.
(a) that declaratory decree cannot be enforced and implemented through the agency of a writ petition Muhammad Yousaf Khan and others v. Pakistan Railway through Vice‑Chairman, P. R. and others (1972 S C M R 1) refers ;
(b) that in any case, respondent was not entitled to the relief regarding payment of arrears of salary even if a declaratory decree could have been passed by the High Court, and
(c) that the view that the Intra‑Court Appeal was not competent against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was a misread ing, misinterpretation and misconstruction of the provision of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, as amended by the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act 8 of 1972, keeping in view the nature of the proceedings in question.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Caveator, we consider that these points require further examination.
Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer