| Case ID |
f833ea9b-daf4-44f3-8a25-e91fcda4f3d0 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision Petition No. 101 of 1957 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 28, 1958 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court ruled that the Army Act did not alter the terms of engagement for military servants who continue to hold office at the pleasure of the Crown. The court held that military personnel do not have a cause of action against their dismissal or discharge in civil court. The court further clarified that the jurisdiction of civil courts extends only to determining whether the terms of engagement create a civil right, and in this case, it found that the plaintiffs had no such right. The judgments cited indicate that even if an order of discharge is made by an unauthorized officer, it does not confer a cause of action upon the discharged military personnel. The decision emphasizes the principle that public policy dictates the Crown's right to dismiss military personnel without judicial recourse. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of the Army Act (VIII of 1911) concerning the rights of military personnel in Pakistan. The Lahore High Court addressed the legality of the dismissal of Lt. Col. Z. A. Mazari, ruling that military personnel serve at the pleasure of the Crown. It was established that military servants do not possess a civil right to challenge their discharge in civil courts, as the Army Act maintains that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of military authorities. The court referenced various precedents to support its conclusion that the Army Act does not alter the fundamental terms of engagement for military personnel, which are governed by public policy. The ruling reinforces the notion that while civil courts can determine the existence of civil rights, they cannot intervene in matters of military service contracts, thus upholding the Crown's prerogative over military employment. This decision impacts the broader understanding of military law and the limitations placed on military personnel regarding legal recourse for dismissal. Keywords: Army Act, military personnel rights, civil court jurisdiction, public policy, legal recourse. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
B. Z. Kaikaus, J
|
| Lawyers |
S. A. Mahmood, Additional Advocate-General for Petitioner,
Qalander Ali Khan for Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
|
| Respondents |
LT. COL. Z. A. MAZARI
|
| Citations |
1958 SLD 120,
1958 PLD 472
|
| Other Citations |
Mitchell v. The Queen (1896) 1 Q B D 121,
Dunn v. The Queen (1896) 1 Q B D 116,
High Commissioner for India v. I. M. Lall P L D 1948 P C 150,
In R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State A I R 1937 P C 31,
The King v. The Army Council (1917) 2 K B 504,
Tahmas v. The Central Government of Pakistan P L D 1956 Lah. 871,
Gould v. Stuart 1896 A C 575,
Shenton v. Smith 1895 A C 229,
Union of India v. Ram Chand Beli Ram A I R 1955 Pb. 166
|
| Laws Involved |
Army Act (VIII of 1911)
|
| Sections |
16,
13,
14,
113
|