ADMINISTRATOR, THAI DEVELOPMENT vs MEHBOOB ALI KHAN
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court involving questions regarding the execution of a declaratory decree through a writ petition, the entitlement to arrears of salary under such a decree, and the competency of an Intra-Court Appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The core legal questions pertain to the permissible scope of relief in constitutional petitions relating to declaratory decrees and service matters, as well as the interpretation of appellate remedies. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised by the petitioner require detailed examination. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to consider the propositions of law canvassed.
- Can a declaratory decree be enforced and implemented through the agency of a writ petition?
- Whether a respondent is entitled to the relief regarding payment of arrears of salary following a declaratory decree passed by the High Court?
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal competent against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, keeping in view the nature of the proceedings?
- Section 3, Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
- Law Reforms (Amendment) Act 8 of 1972
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.- Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, in support of this petition for leave to appeal, contended inter alia-
(a) that declaratory decree cannot be enforced and implemented through the agency of a writ petition Muhammad Yousaf Khan and others v. Pakistan Railway through Vice-Chairman, P. R. And others (1972 SCMR 1) refers ;
(b) that in any case, respondent was not entitled to the relief regarding payment of arrears of salary even if a declaratory decree could have been passed by the High Court, and
(c) that the view that the Intra-Court Appeal was not competent against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was a misread--ing, misinterpretation and misconstruction of the provision of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, as amended by the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act 8 of 1972, keeping in view the nature of the proceedings in question.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Caveator, we consider that these points require further examination.
3. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted.