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 Petitions Nos. 918, 922 to 926 of 1984, heard on 7th May, 1985.
(Against the judgment and order, dated 2nd June and 4th July, 1984 of Service Tribunal).
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑Principal orders, adjudicating entitlement of respondents to benefit of pay and allowances, not challenged by petitioners and same attaining finality‑ Appeal sought to be filed against clarification of principal order made by Service Tribunal and not against principal order made by it‑ Clarification not going beyond ambit of principal orders, held, could not be a subject‑matter of appeal independently of principal orders‑‑No question of law of public importance arising in appeal‑‑Leave refused.
Munir A. Sheikh, Deputy Advocate‑General instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 7th May, 1985.
The Government of Pakistan seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against orders of the Service Tribunal on miscellaneous applications explaining the real import of its earlier orders while allowing the appeals.
By judgments which have attained finality, as none challenged them, the respondent civil servants were held entitled to the pay and allowances admissible to them in Grade‑18 for the period they performed the duties of that post irrespective of the stipulation in their appointment order that they would receive the pay in their own grade. The pay was also to include the increments accruing to them from time to time during the period of officiation.
The concerned respondents were denied the full benefits whereupon clarification was sought from the Tribunal which passed the following operative order in one such case which governed other cases as well:‑
"It was stated at the bar that certain officers, whose cases were on all fours with that of the appellant, had been paid on the basis of length of service formula. This was not controverted by the departmental representative. Also, the appellant has cited the cases of F. A. Barlas and A. H. Gilani to support his contention which the respondents have not controverted in their written reply.
In view of the foregoing analysis, we accept the miscellaneous petition and order that the appellant shall be paid on the length of service formula. His claim of Rs.23,505.65 be looked into and paid immediately but not beyond the three months reckoning from the date of receipt of this order so that this sad chapter is brought to a close."
The learned Deputy Attorney‑General contended that leave to appeal has already been granted in a number of cases to examine similar question of law, e.g. Civil Petition No. 655‑R of 1983.
We find that the principal orders adjudicating the entitlement of the respondents have not been appealed against and have, therefore, attained finality. The clarification does not go beyond the ambit of the principal orders and cannot, therefore, be a subject‑matter of appeal independently of the principal orders.
No question of law of public importance arises in these cases. Leave to appeal is refused.
M.Y.H Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer