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.
Case No. 140/1621 of 1982, decided on 14th June, 1982.
‑‑S. 12. (if) read with Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981); Art. 13‑Retirement after completion of 25 years' service qualifying for pension‑Right of review under. Art. 13 of Provisional Constitu tion Order, 1981‑Cannot be refused‑Retirement of Naib‑Tehsildar--‑Appeal before Tribunal dismissed on promulgation of Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 allowing right of review before competent authority (Commissioner)‑Commissioner refusing to entertain review petition on grounds that appellant had already exhausted his remedy by way of appeal before Board of Revenue-Once appeal before Tribunal disposed of under Art. 13, Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, remedy of appellant, in circumstances, held, lies in fresh review petition under said Art. 13‑Commissioner directed by Service Tribunal to entertain review petition and decide same on merits‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.
Khawaja Abrar Majal for Appellant.
Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.
In case of Ghulam Nabi, who was retired under section 12 of the Punjab Civil Service Act after the completion of 25 years service calling for pension etc: In this case it is found that the appeal before this Tribunal which was dismissed in limine in view of Article 13 of the P.C.O. However he was allowed by the said order to avail the right of review which was given to him by the P.C.O. itself. In pursuance of the above directions of the Tribunal the appellant filed a review petition before the Commissioner Multan Division, Multan who declined to entertain the same vide his judgment order dated 28‑12‑1981 therein he held that the appellant has already exhausted this remedy by way of appeal before the Board of Revenue, therefore, it was not competent. .
We are afraid that the interpretation of this issue by the learned Commissioner's order is not in accordance with the spirit and letter of Article 13 of the P. C. O. It seems that said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that while dealing with this issue we. resolve it by laying that once the appeal is disposed of by the Tribunal under Article 13 of P. C. O. the remedy with the appellant lies to file a fresh review petition such a right is given to him in the P. C. O. itself. With these observations we dispose of the appeal and direct the learned Commissioner to entertain his review petition afresh and decide the case on merits.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer