Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 114‑K of 1986, decided on 24th August,. 1986.
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 74(K) of 1983, dated 14‑1‑1986)
‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4 Compulsory Retirement‑‑Leave to appeal granted in a similar petition involving same points as in petition in hand‑‑Leave granted.
A.H. Memon, Advocate Supreme Court with A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th August, 1986.
Through this petition leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 14‑1‑1986 of the Federal Service Tribunal; whereby the petitioner's appeal against compulsory retirement on ground of health, was dismissed.
The petitioner and one Mr. Z. U. Khan were serving in the Plant Protection Department under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Islamabad. They were allegedly required to hold a Commercial Pilot licence during the continuance of service in the said Department as they were required to fly aeroplanes in addition to their other office duties, and as the authorities in the Civil Aviation Department refused to renew their commercial pilot licences on ground of ill‑health, therefore, they were unable to hold the post in which the existence of commercial pilot licence was necessary. In the end after some proceedings before various authorities both Mr. Z. U. Khan and the petitioner were retired from service as Operational Managers in the said Department of Plant Protection. They filed two separate appeals before the Service Tribunal. The appeal of Mr. Z. U. Khan was heard first in time and it was dismissed mainly on the ground that non‑renewal of his commercial pilot licence had rendered him disabled and unfit for properly discharging duties assigned to him, thus leaving no option with the Government except to retire him. The petitioner's case was separated for consideration of an additional contention at some other time. He had tried to make his case distinguishable from that of Z.U. Khan by asserting that although flying operations were essential part of duties of Z. U. Khan, the functions and responsibilities of the petitioner were of managerial and controlling nature which could easily be discharged without holding a commercial pilot licence. His appeal having been heard on a different date, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was also an essential part of the duties of the petitioner to undertake operational flights, therefore, his case was not distinguishable from that of Mr. Z.U. Khan.
Leave to appeal has already been granted to Mr. Z.U. Khan by this Court in Civil Petition No. 553 of 1985 and his appeal No. 198‑K of 1986 is now pending hearing. The impugned judgment and points involved in both the cases being the same, we grant leave to appeal in this case also.
Both appeals shall be heard together on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary
M. Y. H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer