Pakistan Case Law
2001 SCMR 768

FAZAL ILLAHI Versus P.T.C.

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2001 SCMR 768
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions Nos.259-K 288-K to 295-K, 311-K to 315-K, 328-K, 332-K, 339-K; 340-K, 342-K, 351-K, 352-K, 359-K to 362-K, 364-K, 370-K, 371-K, 375-K, 377-K, 381-K, 383-K, 388-K, 462-K, 474-K, 479-K 529-K and 552-K of 1998
Date1998-08-03
Judge(s)Ajmal Mian, C.J., Mamoon Kazi and Wajihuddin Ahmed
Authored byAjmal Mian
ResultAppeals allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter involves a series of petitions filed against judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, all originating from a common judgment dated 26-12-1997. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal's decisions, which were previously challenged in related litigation, required reconsideration in light of established precedents. The Supreme Court observed that the subject matter had already been addressed in Civil Petition No. 1305-K of 1997 (Syed Aftab Ahmed v. K.E.S.C.), decided on 16-4-1998, where the Court had remanded similar cases to the Service Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to condone the delay in filing for several time-barred petitions. The Court held that the present petitions should be converted into appeals and remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal for a fresh decision, strictly adhering to the observations and directions contained in the judgment dated 16-4-1998. This decision reinforces the principle of judicial consistency and the necessity for the Service Tribunal to align its findings with the appellate court's guidance in related service matters.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Should petitions challenging Service Tribunal judgments be remanded if they involve issues already settled by the Supreme Court in related cases?
service tribunalremandcondonation of delayservice appealjudicial consistency

ORDER

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.- --The above petitions have been filed against 'various judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal but all -are based on the judgment dated 26-12-1997, passed in Appeal No. 2638(K) of 1997. The aforesaid judgment has been subject-matter of appeal inter alia in Civil, Petition No. 1305-K of 1997 (Syed Aftab Ahmed v. K.E.S.C.) decided on 16-4-1998 by a Bench of this Court comprising two of us (Ajmal Mian, C.J. and Mamoon Kazi, J.), and Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, J., whereby we converted the above petitions into appeals and remanded the cases to the Service Tribunal for fresh decision on the appeals in the light of the observations contained in the above judgment.

2. In the present set of petitions, C.P. No. 370-K of 1998, C.P. No.529-K of 1998 and C.P. No. 552-K of 1998 are barred by time by 10 days, 91 days and 48 days respectively. However, since we are remanding the other cases, we condone the delay in the above petitions.

3. The above petitions are converted into appeals and they are remanded to the Service Tribunal in terms of the above judgment dated 16-4-1998 passed in Civil Petition No. 1305-K of 1997 and other connected petitions. The aforesaid judgment dated 16-4-1998 may be read as a part of this Order.

Leave petitions converted into appeals and appeals allowed

H.B.T./F-21/S Appeals allowed.

Cited by 4 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.