Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 1514

MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR MALIK vs PAKISTAN, through Secretary and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 1514
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,609 of 1982
Date1989-02-18
Judge(s)Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan
Authored byGhulam Mujaddid
ResultPetition dismissed
Summary

This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an administrative matter regarding the petitioner's employment status. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector, had been absorbed into the Punjab Constabulary. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petition remained maintainable given that the primary relief sought—absorption into the service—had already been granted. The Court held that since the petitioner had already been absorbed into the Punjab Constabulary, the petition had become infructuous. Regarding the petitioner's additional grievances concerning seniority and associated service benefits, the Court declined to adjudicate these issues, noting that the petitioner had not exhausted appropriate administrative remedies. The Court dismissed the petition while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue his claims regarding seniority and benefits before the relevant competent authority. The key principle laid down is that where the primary relief sought in a petition has been rendered moot by subsequent events, the petition becomes infructuous, and ancillary service disputes should be addressed through proper departmental channels rather than by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a petition become infructuous when the primary relief sought has already been granted?
  • Can the Supreme Court adjudicate claims regarding seniority and service benefits when the petitioner has not first approached the relevant competent authority?
service matterinfructuous petitionseniority disputeadministrative remedyPunjab Constabulary

ORDER

1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is barred by 11 days. The delay is condoned.

2. The petitioner has been absorbed in the Punjab Constabulary where he is working as Sub- Inspector. This means that he has already got the relief. The petition as such becomes infructuous.

3. ' Nevertheless, learned counsel submitted that he is not satisfied with the order of absorption because the petitioner has not been given the seniority and other benefits.

4. ' We are not prepared to consider this request. The petitioner, if so advised, may urge these points before the Authority concerned.

5. ' The petition is dismissed.

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