WAPDA vs ABDUL LATIF QURESHI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Central Service Tribunal dated 8-10-1986, which allowed the respondent's service appeal against his removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question concerns the limits of the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction to interfere with removal actions taken under Section 17(1-A) and whether the respondent's case fell within the permissible categories for interference established by prior precedent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since there was no distinguishing feature between the present case and a previously adjudicated parallel case where leave to appeal was refused, the petition must also be dismissed. The key principle laid down is that consistent treatment must be applied to materially identical service matters, and where a petition for leave to appeal has been dismissed in a virtually identical case involving the same statutory provision, leave will likewise be refused.
- Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with the removal of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958?
- Should leave to appeal be refused when there is no distinguishing feature between the case at hand and a previously decided parallel case?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment of the Central Service Tribunal dated 8-10-1986; whereby service appeal of the respondent against his removal from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, was allowed. Learned counsel has contended that the case of the respondent did not fall under either of the three categories of cases in which the Tribunal can interfere, as held, by this Court in WAPDA and another V: Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18, therefore, the impugned judgment merits interference. The action taken by the WAPDA against the respondent was almost the same as taken against one Muhammad Arshad. His appeal was also allowed by the Tribunal and the petition for leave to appeal by the present petitioner, was dismissed by this Court on 14th December, 1985. See Water and Power Development Authority v. Muhammad Rashid 1986 SCMR 588.
2. Learned counsel agreed that there is no distinguishing feature between the two cases. That being so, there is no alternative but to refuse leave to appeal in this case as well. The petition accordingly is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAHID M. AKHTAR and 4 others vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE and another 1990 PLC (C.S.) 411