| Case ID |
4679e503-f8bb-4dd5-a460-f9a99cb62eb2 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Inter-Court Appeal No. 212-A of 1981 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 18, 1983 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Accountant-General, Punjab, and another party against Ch. Qadir Bakhsh and another. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that it was time-barred due to an 8-day delay in filing without an application for condonation of delay. The court emphasized the necessity for government departments to maintain vigilance and efficiency, stating that no premium can be placed on inefficiency. The appellant's explanation for the delay, citing examination by different departments, was deemed insufficient. Additionally, the contention that the writ petition was not competent was rejected as it was an afterthought and lacked merit. The court upheld the lower judge's decision, reinforcing that the refusal to revise the pension was without lawful authority and directed the respondent to act accordingly. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed both on procedural grounds and merits, with costs awarded to the respondent. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Inter-Court Appeal No. 212-A of 1981, the Lahore High Court adjudicated on a pivotal pension dispute involving the Accountant-General, Punjab as the appellant and Ch. Qadir Bakhsh as the respondent. The central issue revolved around the timely filing of an appeal post the limitation period and the subsequent refusal to revise pension amounts as mandated by government memos. The appellant filed the appeal eight days beyond the prescribed limitation without seeking condonation for the delay, leading to its dismissal on procedural grounds. The court underscored the imperative for governmental departments to exhibit efficiency and accountability, rejecting any leniency for procedural lapses. Furthermore, the contention that the writ petition was not within the competent jurisdiction was dismissed as irrelevant and improperly raised post the initial judgment. The court's decision reiterated the sanctity of established legal procedures, reinforcing that time-barred appeals cannot be entertained without valid justification. This judgment not only affirmed the lower court's stance but also set a precedent emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal timelines and the non-negotiable nature of procedural compliance in the judicial system. The dismissal of the appeal solidified the government's position on maintaining stringent oversight over pension revisions and administrative processes, ensuring that such matters are handled with the requisite diligence and promptness. This case serves as a critical reference for future litigations involving pension disputes and the procedural requisites for filing appeals within stipulated timelines. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Provincial Government,
Federal Government,
Government of the Punjab,
Accountant-General, Punjab
|
| Judges |
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM,
KHALILUR RAHMAN KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Tanveer Ahmad Khan,
Ch. Muhammad Hassan
|
| Petitioners |
THE ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, PUNJAB
|
| Respondents |
Ch. QADIR BAKHSH
|
| Citations |
1983 SLD 519 = 1983 PLD 246
|
| Other Citations |
Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and another v. Ghulam Ghaus etc. 1974 S C M R 38,
The Province of West Pakistan, Lahore v. Mian Noor Ahmad and others 1975 S C M R 91 fol.
|
| Laws Involved |
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972),
Limitation Act (IX of 1908),
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)
|
| Sections |
S 3,
S. 5,
S. 4
|