Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 884 of 1984, decided on 11th November,1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 29‑5‑1984 passed in Appeal No. 128(L) of 1981).

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance (XIII of 1978), S. 3‑‑Removal from service challenged‑‑Petitioner being over age at time of his appointment and no order with regard to relaxation of age limit having been passed, order of removal upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑[Civil services].

Ch. Mustafa Masood, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th November, 1985.

‑‑This petition seeks to challenge the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 29‑5‑1984.

2. The petitioner who was an Assistant Manager Waqf Properties, Rawalpindi was removed from service by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minority Affairs by order, dated 15‑4‑1979 under the provisions of section 3 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance (XIII of 1978). The petitioner made a representation, dated 30‑4‑1979 against the said order to the President of Pakistan which was rejected on 6‑12‑1979 and information to this effect was duly conveyed to him. The petitioner who should have legally filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal within 30 days of the receipt of rejection letter, instead filed a Writ Petition before the Lahore High Court which was withdrawn after long pendency on 20‑9‑1981. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal to the Service Tribunal on 8‑10‑1981.

3. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation as well as on merits. On the first ground it was held that the petitioner had failed to show any sufficient ground for the condonation of delay. As respects merits it was found that there existed sufficient evidence on the record to show that the petitioner was appointed on political consideration, he was not educationally qualified for the job and was also over age.

4. Without going into the question of condonation of delay, we find no case for admission of the petition even on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded before us that his client was over age at the time of his appointment and no order with regard to relaxation of age limit was passed either at the time of appointment or for that matter at any stage.

5. This petition, in the circumstances, fails and is dismissed accordingly.

M. I. 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.