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. 901 of 1984, decided on 26th February, 1985.
(Against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, Camp at Lahore, dated 29‑5‑1984).
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 12‑A‑‑Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance (II of 1978), S. 3‑‑Service Tribunal, jurisdiction of‑‑Interference with order of dismissal an ground that no evidence had been produced by respondent to show that appellant was appointed on political considerations‑‑Relevant law requiring no such ground for taking action‑‑Leave granted to consider whether by importing such jurisdictional limitation Tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction in interpreting and applying a law‑‑Question being of public importance arising in a number of cases.
Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ch. Muhammad Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 26th February, 1985.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 29‑5‑1984 whereby the dismissal of respondent under section 3 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, was set aside.
The Tribunal has interfered with the order of the dismissal on the ground that no evidence has been produced by the respondent from which it could discover that the appellant had been appointed on political consideration.
The law under which the dismissal had been ordered provided on such ground for taking action nor the action was sustainable by reference to such ground. By importing such jurisdictional limitation whether the Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction in interpreting and applying a law is a question of public importance arising in a number of cases particularly under section 12‑A of the Civil Servants Act. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted and this shall be subject to all just exceptions with regard to limitation. The learned counsel has explained the delay by pointing out that the order was not announced but was communicated and the date of communication and its receipt make the petition within time.
Let this appeal be heard alongwith other appeals raising similar question.
M.I.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer