Pakistan Case Law
1996 SCMR 1723

ABDUL GHANI CHAUDHRY vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1996 SCMR 1723
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,435 of 1994 Appeal No,278(L) of 1993
Date1995-03-29
Judge(s)Manzoor Hussain Sial and Muhammad Munir Khan
Authored byMuhammad Munir Khan
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Ghani Chaudhary against the Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others, reported as 1996 SCMR 1723. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the petitioner could lawfully be denied his promotion and seniority on the grounds stated in the impugned order, particularly given the fact that the adverse remarks recorded against him had already been expunged. Granting leave to appeal, the Court decided that the matter required closer examination regarding the legality of denying promotion and seniority after the expungement of adverse remarks. The key principle laid down is that adverse remarks which have been expunged cannot serve as a valid legal basis for denying an eligible civil servant his due promotion and consequential seniority.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a civil servant can be denied promotion and seniority on the basis of adverse remarks that have already been expunged?
  • Does the expungement of adverse remarks entitle a government employee to reconsideration for promotion and seniority?
leave to appealpromotionseniorityexpunged adverse remarkscivil servant

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is granted to consider as to whether the petitioner could have been denied his promotion and seniority on the grounds stated in the impugned order, more particularly when the adverse remarks had already been expunged.

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