PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others vs Mrs. Dr. SHAHIDA SHAH and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a consent order passed by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court regarding the transfer of a government employee, respondent No. 1, from her position as Additional Medical Superintendent. The High Court had directed the Provincial Government to have the Chief Minister decide the respondent's representation against her transfer within a week, with the respondent agreeing to report for her new assignment if the decision went against her. The Province of Punjab contested the High Court's use of the word 'directed' in the order, arguing it was merely a consent arrangement. The Supreme Court found the petition barred by 36 days and held that the reasons provided for condonation of delay were insufficient. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation. However, the Court clarified that the High Court's direction should be interpreted as a mutual arrangement between the parties, and it remained open for the Chief Minister to decide the representation, with the respondent bound to comply with that decision.
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when it is barred by 36 days without sufficient cause for condonation?
- Can a court order based on a consent arrangement be recharacterized as a mere arrangement rather than a mandatory direction?
ORDER
' This is a petition for leave to appeal against the consent order dated 9-6-1994 passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court, Lahore in No, 4953 of 1994 filed by the respondent No, 1 against her transfer from the post of Addl. Medical Supdt. (F) Service Hospital, Lahore and for reporting to Director General Health Services on the ground that she has been writing thesis and she needs more time.
2. The arrangement was that Chief Minister would decide the representation made by respondent No, 1 against the above transfer order within a week and in case he decides the representation against respondent No,1, she would report for new assignment.
3. The grievance of the Province is that though it was an arrangement agreed by the learned Addl: A.-G. But the High Court has used the words that the Provincial Government is directed.
4. This petition is barred by 36 days, and therefore, is liable to be dismissed on that ground as reasons shown for condonation of delay are not sufficient. However, while dismissing the petition, we observe, that above direction may be termed as arrangement between petitioner and respondent No,
1. It will be open to the Chief Minister, to decide the representation even now and respondent No, 1 will abide by that.
' With this observation, the petition is dismissed. 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.