MUHAMMAD YAR vs REHMAT ALI and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the interlocutory order of the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore passed in a service appeal. The core legal question concerned the expeditious resolution of pending service disputes before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed of the petition upon a joint request by the learned counsel representing both parties, holding that the interests of justice would be adequately served by directing the Tribunal to hear arguments and conclude the proceedings on the already fixed date, and to deliver its judgment shortly thereafter. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may issue directives for the speedy disposal of pending administrative and service matters to ensure the prompt administration of justice without interfering in the merits of the ongoing proceedings.
- Whether the Supreme Court can direct a service tribunal to expeditiously conclude pending proceedings upon a joint request of the parties?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against an interlocutory adjournment order of a service tribunal?
ORDER
' Leave to appeal is claimed against the order dated 4-2-1998 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No,1045 of 1997.
2. The matter before the Tribunal, admittedly, progressed further and after couple of hearings the same had to be postponed to 6-3-1997. On the last mentioned date the matter was postponed on 22-3-1997 and a direction for filing a report along parawise comments by the respondent-side was also made and the case was postponed to 6-5-1997.
3. On query from the Bench, both Hafiz Tariq Nasim learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition and Mr. Mahmoodul Islam, learned Advocate on Record representing respondent No, l/caveator have informed us that the impugned case is fixed for hearing arguments on 12-8-1998. They have jointly requested for disposal of this petition with a direction to the Tribunal to resolve the controversy before it expeditiously. We also find that the ends of justice will adequately, be met if the case is heard and arguments concluded on the next date already fixed i.e, 12-8-1998 and judgment delivered not later than two days thereafter. .