SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT and others vs Dr. SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUE andothers
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department and others against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 20-5-2000. The core legal question was whether the Punjab Service Tribunal erred in deviating from a previous judgment of the Supreme Court and whether the impugned order complied with settled rules. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal passed its order in conformity with the rule laid down in the earlier judgment of the Court, and further found that no substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was involved. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined leave to appeal.
- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal erred in following the rule laid down in the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court?
- Does the case involve a substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.---Mr. Muhammad Riaz. Lone, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners, mainly contended that the Punjab Service Tribunal, vide judgment dated 20-5-2000 passed in Appeal No,734 of 1999, was wrong in deviating from the judgment of this Court dated 4-12-1998 passed in Civil Petition No,387 of 1998 (Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui v.
Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore. And another). In the case of Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui (supra) the Department had been directed to complete the implementation of the judgment of this Court delivered in Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui v. Mian Abdul Malik and 4 others PLD 1991 SC 226. The impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal in conformity with the rule laid down in the said judgment. Consequently, no case warranting interference is made out. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution is involved in this case.
2. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined.