Pakistan Case LawKHALID HUSSAIN , Versus THE CHANCELLOR (GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB) and 4 others
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition with special costs. The petitioner, an executive engineer at the University of Engineering and Technology, challenged a series of administrative orders that curtailed his delegated financial powers. The core legal question was whether an employee possesses a legally enforceable right in respect of administrative financial powers delegated to him. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and upheld the High Court's dismissal, holding that the petition was misconceived. The Court established that delegation of financial powers is merely an administrative arrangement intended to assist an employee in performing duties efficiently and does not confer any legal or quasi-legal right on the employee. Consequently, an employee cannot be considered an aggrieved person entitled to invoke constitutional jurisdiction when such powers are modified or withdrawn.
- Does the delegation of financial powers to a public employee confer any legal or quasi-legal right on that employee?
- Can an employee challenge the curtailment or withdrawal of his delegated financial powers through a constitutional petition?
- Is an employee considered an 'aggrieved person' when administrative powers delegated to him for duty efficiency are curtailed?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 13-12-1993 of the Lahore High Court whereby the Constitution petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
2.The petitioner was serving as an executive engineer in the Building and Works Department of the University of Engineering and Technology. He was responsible for the maintenance of the hostels of the University. For the efficient discharge of his duties he was delegated with financial powers to incur expenditure up to Rs, 10,000. Subsequently, by a series of orders falling between 28-3-1992 and 10-8-1992 his financial powers were curtailed. He filed a Constitution petition in the High Court challenging the curtailment of his powers. The petition was dismissed and he was called upon to pay Rs, 10,000 by way of special costs. He seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3.This petition is clearly misconceived. The delegation of financial powers upon the petitioner was not intended to confer any right or quasi-rights on him; it was merely intended to assist him in performing his duties efficiently. He cannot possibly be said to be aggrieved if this power is taken away from him or curtailed. The High Court was therefore right in dismissing the petition as it was clearly not maintainable. Leave is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments