Pakistan Case Law← Search
1994 SCMR 544

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others vs MUHAMMAD QAISAR HAYAT KHAN

Citation1994 SCMR 544
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 342 of 1993 Appeal No, 278-L/1992
Date1993-11-24
Judge(s)Fazal Ilahi Khan, Manzoor Hussain Sial
ResultLeave refused

ORDER

' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and three others have called in question the validity of judgment dated 20-4-1993, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), in Service Appeal No,278(L) of 1992.

2. The respondent employed as Electronic Engineer, in BPS-17, in Pakistan Meteorological Department, was denied move-over to BPS-18, with effect from 1-12-1984, on the basis of the decision of the departmental authority. He approached the Tribunal in appeal which was accepted vide impugned judgment dated 20-4-1993, and he was granted the relief prayed for, by him in the appeal. The Tribunal repelled the contention raised by the departmental representative that the respondent had only earned "average" Annual Confidential Reports in the preceding five years and therefore was not entitled to the grant of move-over. The Tribunal in fact relied on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Anwar v. The Secretary, Establishment Division and others (PLD 1992 SC 144), wherein it was observed, "if there is no adverse report against him and he gets "average reports" they would have to be treated as "generally good" for purpose of move-over.

Because a report of "average" cannot be treated as adverse unless specifically so treated and then conveyed to the civil servant as an adverse report."

3. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners and have perused the relevant record. Learned counsel for petitioners reiterated the contention earlier advanced before the Tribunal. The dictum laid down in the aforesaid precedent has correctly been applied by the Tribunal in the instant case.

After hearing learned counsel for petitioners, we find that this is not a fit case for interference in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. In consequence this petition fails and leave is refused.

Cited by 7 cases

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