Pakistan Case LawJUNAID AHMAD KHAN Versus CHIEF ENGINEER and others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal and subsequent restoration applications for non-prosecution. The core legal question pertained to whether sufficient and unintentional grounds were shown for the absence of the petitioner and his counsel, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent orders of dismissal for default in a service matter involving seniority disputes. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was negligent in prosecuting his appeal and restoration applications, and no substantial question of public importance was involved to warrant interference under its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that habitual negligence in pursuing legal remedies before a service tribunal does not merit Supreme Court intervention.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution when the petitioner is found negligent?
- Does a service dispute regarding seniority alone involve a substantial question of public importance warranting Supreme Court jurisdiction?
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from order dated 1-2-1992 5t the Punjab Service Tribunal, passed in Appeal No, 226/1990.
The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Junior Clerk, in 1982, in the office of the Executive Engineer, Highway Division, Sargodha, on regular basis, whereas the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 were appointed on ad hoc basis. In the seniority list issued by the Superintendent Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha, on 18-10-1985, the petitioner was shown junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 8. He made representation to the departmental authority but of no avail. Ultimately he filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was dismissed on 6-10-1990, for non-prosecution. The petitioner moved application for restoration of the appeal on 4-11-1990, but that too was dismissed on 17-3-1991, for non-prosecution. Thereafter he filed an application for restoration of that petition which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 1-2-1992. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the absence of the petitioner and his counsel to prosecute the appeal which was dismissed in default as also the application for restoration of the petition dismissed in default, was not intentional. We have, however, noticed that the petitioner has been negligent in prosecuting the appeal as well as the application for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default.
In our view, no substantial question of public importance is involved, in this case so as to strict the jurisdiction of this Court for interference in the matter. Resultantly, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss it.
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Muhammad Rafiq Tarar605 judgments
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments