Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 1055

Syed GHULAM RAZA vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 1055
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Review Petition No. 27-R of 1984
Date1986-02-24
Judge(s)Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza
Authored byShafiur Rahman
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 29-2-1984, which had previously disposed of the petitioner's petition for leave to appeal. The petitioner, a civil servant, contended that he was exempt from the requirement of having his employment case referred to the Public Service Commission, arguing that his appointment predated the relevant regulatory framework, specifically relying on definitions within the Ordinance XIV of 1981. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's arguments regarding his service status and the applicability of the Ordinance warranted a review of the previous judgment. The Court held that the petitioner's arguments had already been thoroughly considered and addressed in the original judgment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing the principle that a review petition cannot be utilized as a mechanism for a de novo rehearing of a case on grounds that have already been adjudicated upon. The scope of review jurisdiction is strictly limited and does not extend to re-arguing the entire merits of a previously decided matter.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a review petition be used to seek a de novo rehearing of a case on the same grounds already adjudicated?
  • What is the scope and purpose of review jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 2(d), Ordinance XIV of 1981
  • Section 2(f), Ordinance XIV of 1981
review petitioncivil servicescope of reviewPublic Service Commissionrehearing de novo

ORDER

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks review of our judgment, dated 29-2-1984 whereby his petition for leave to appeal was disposed of.

2. His sole contention is that as he was already in service before 29-4-1977 and had been validly appointed a civil servant by letter, dated 2-7-1977, he did not fall in the category of employees whose case was to be referred to Public Service Commission. For this, he relies on the definition of "employee" in clause (f) and of "Council" in clause (d) of section 2 of Ordinance XIV of 1981.

3. The submission of the petitioner, who earlier also personally argued his case, finds mention in paras. 14 to 16 of the judgment, and all aspects of his contention are dealt with therein. What the petitioner is now seeking amounts to a rehearing de novo of his entire case on the same grounds.

4. Such is not the scope and purpose of a review. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.

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