Aggrieved Person

  1. Promotion of respondent as Naib Tehsildar-challenge to-Whether appellant was an aggrieved person-Question of-under section 4 of Service Tribunal Act 1975, a civil servant is competent to prefer an appeal only if he is found to be an aggrieved person. Held: — Civil servant who invokes  jurisdiction for redressing his grievance, must show that he was an aggrieved person as envisaged under relevant law. Appeal dismissed. Syed Shaukat H. v. A. Rehman Abassi  1993 SCR 70 (A)
  2. It is not necessary to qualify as an aggrieved person that a right in the strict juristic sense should be vested in him, yet a person must at least show that he has some interest that the respondent should act in accordance with law.  Umar Din Kiani v. Azad Government & others 1995 SCR 166 (C)
  3. It is sufficient if petitioner successfully establishes that he has an existing right to challenge an illegal order which adversely affects his rights whatsoever they may be. Residents of Mirpur  v. Mayor MCM 1995 SCR 332 (F) Muhammad Yusuf Sani Vs. Azad Govt. and others. (Civil Appeal No.26 of 1994 decided on 28.1.1995 ,1994 SCR 167, 1980 CLC 198) Maqsood  Hussain Vs. Chairman Municipal Committee, (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1992decided on 30.5.1992) relied.
  4. The question of an aggrieved person was not attended to and the writ petition was dismissed in limine — Only the considering one aspect of his grievance — As that matter has not been dealt with in the context as to whether the appellant is an aggrieved person for assailing the impugned order as a citizen — Impugned order set aside — Case remanded to the High Court for decision afresh according to law. Nasir H. Shah v. Conservator of Forests & 2 others 1998 SCR 149 (A)
  5. To be an aggrieved person it is not necessary that an applicant should be aggrieved in strict juristic sense — If his interests are liable to be jeopardised by an act of the functionary of Govt., which is not in accordance with law, the applicant for the redressal of his grievance become an aggrieved person. Abdul Majid & 24 others v. Abdul Latif Shah and 4 others 1999 SCR 459 (D)
  6. To qualify as an aggrieved person it is not to be proved that one has a vested right in the strict juristic sense — It is sufficient if an aggrieved person seeking remedy shows that he has some tangible interest in the matter or he will gain some advantage if an illegal order is set aside. Abdul Qadir  v. Abdul Karim and 4 others 2000 SCR 97 (A)
  7. It is well settled that to be an aggrieved person it is not necessary that one should have a strict juristic right to enforce it by filing a writ petition. Pervaiz Akhtar v.  Rashid Majeed and 3 others 2000 SCR 452 (B)
  8. Objection that the respondent was not an aggrieved person therefore could not file writ — This point was not taken in memo of appeal and also not included in the concise statement — A new point cannot be raised during arguments. Naeem Feroze v. Iqbal Rashid Minhas 2001 SCR 91 (C)
  9. In advertisement one of the terms and conditions was that if suitable candidates from Muzaffarabad District were not available, the vacancy may be filled in by any suitable candidates from other Districts — Respondent duly participated in the test and interview after going through the terms and conditions of advertisement published by the Public Service Commission and surrendered himself to its jurisdiction — As respondent could not qualify the test, he was not an aggrieved person to challenge the selection of appellant by filing a writ petition. Suleman Ahmed  v. Tanveer Ahmed Mir and 3 others 2001 SCR 282 (B)
  10. If it is shown by an aggrieved person that an act of the executive authority is tainted with mala fides or for that matter the same offends against law, such an act is open to review by superior Courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction. AJK Govt. & others v. Abdul majeed & another 2002 SCR 24 (B)
  11. If it is shown by aggrieved person that an act of executive authority is tainted with mala fide or for that  matter the same offends against law, such an act is open to review by superior Courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction — For maintaining a proceedings in writ jurisdiction is not necessarily a right in the strict juristic sense but it is enough if the applicant discloses that he had a personal interest in the performance of the legal duty which if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage or the curtailment of a privilege or liberty of franchise. Muhammad Latif v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Mirpur & 4 others 2003 SCR 229 (B)
  12. The services of respondents have been terminated by the Government — The order was set aside by the High Court — Government was moved for grant of sanction to file appeal before Supreme Court by the Chairman DAM — It was declined — The only aggrieved party was the AJ&K Government which declined to file appeal — As no order of termination of respondents was passed by the Chairman DAM/Executive Secretary DAM, therefore, they are not aggrieved persons to file appeal before this Court — Held: The appeal has been filed incompetently the same entails dismissal. Chairman Development Authority Muzaffarabad & another v. Sajjad Ahmed Sheikh and 2 others 2003 SCR 377 (A)
  13. Appointment of the appellant was at the pleasure of the Government — He was appointed for a period of three years — This period could be reduced by Government — In para 3 of the appointment order it was laid down that extension in period of three years shall not be assumed even if no fresh appointment is made — His appointment would have come to an end automatically at the expiry of three years — The appellant accepted the terms of the notification and joined the office as Public prosecutor — In light of the language applied in the notification he cannot be termed as an ‘aggrieved person’— Held: The appellant cannot be restored to his office. Aurangzeb Chaudhry v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2003 SCR 463 (A)
  14. Respondent was promoted under the direction of Forest Minister without considering the merit of the appellant — Therefore, the appellant was an aggrieved person competent to file appeal before the Service Tribunal. Muhammad Sharif  v. Minister for Forest & 4 others 2005 SCR 282 (B)
  15. Aggrieved person does not mean that he shall have a strict juristic right — It is sufficient if he successfully establishes that he has an existing right to assail the order which is illegal and adversely affects his rights whatever they may be or he should establish that he has some interest in the cause. Chaudhry Ali Muhammad Chacha v. Azad Government & 4 others 2006 SCR 232 (A) 1980 CLC 198, 1993 SCR 37, 1995 SCR 166, 1995 SCR 332 and 1999 SCR 459 rel.
  16. For proving himself as an aggrieved person it is not necessary that a person should have a strict juristic right — if his interests are liable to be jeopardised or he has some interests then he can be termed as an aggrieved person. Chaudhry Ali Muhammad Chacha v. Azad Government & 4 others 2006 SCR 232 (B)
  17. A person voluntarily constructs a building or raises a project while spending crores of rupees for the welfare of public at large — Hands over it to the Government and subsequently the Government destroys such project or makes some changes in project due to which basic aim or object is frustrated, then definitely he will be the actual person who will suffer and be termed as an aggrieved person. Ch. Ali Muhammad Chacha v. Azad Government & 4 others 2006 SCR 232 (C)
  18. Only an aggrieved person can challenge the vires of legislation or order — A writ can be entertained only on the application of an aggrieved person and not by a pro bono publico litigant — Only a person whose interest is adversely affected can challenge the legislation. Asif Hussain v. Azad Govt. & 47 others 2008 SCR 619 (A)
  19. Definition of — Only that person can be called an aggrieved person whose interests have been adversely affected by an impugned order — The respondent was inducted in service on 15.1.2000 — Her case for promotion was referred to the Selection Board on 7.4.2007 — On this very date the petitioner was not in service — The petitioner was not at all aggrieved because when the working paper was prepared and sent to the Selection Board he was not in service — He cannot challenge the promotion order of respondent and his no right has been affected or infringed. Muhammad Rafaqat Abbasi  v. Zahida Perveen & 4 others 2008 SCR 627 (A)
  20. Application for interim relief — Contention that the respondent was already in grade B-16, therefore was not an aggrieved person, has no substance — The substantive grade of the post of Superintendent is B-15, while B-16 was awarded to him for monetary purpose — It cannot be said that the respondent was in substantive B-16, his substantive grade was B-15 — Prima facie the petitioner has no case — Application for interim relief dismissed. Muhammad Maroof  v. Sardar Muhammad Tariq Khan & 3 others 2009 SCR 67 (B)
  21. Not only that person can be considered as an ‘aggrieved person’ whose vested right has been infringed by an action, but it is sufficient if he has a juristic right — It would be sufficient if he has a right to assail an order, which is illegal and affects his rights — If an act is without lawful authority and a person is adversely affected by such act he can seek direction that such act is without lawful authority — The perception that a person can only be termed as an ‘aggrieved person’ if his vested interests are flouted is an incorrect import and meaning of the word ‘aggrieved’ in the context of writ jurisdiction. Azad Govt. & others v. Syed Tayyab Gilani & others 2009 SCR 415 (F)
  22. All the civil servants of Azad Jammu and Kashmir are enjoying the same pay and privileges which are available to their counterparts in Punjab — Through notification dated 26.6.2007 the respondents have been deprived of this benefit and their rights were violated thus they can be termed as ‘‘aggrieved person’’. Azad Govt. v.  Syed Tayyab Gilani & others 2009 SCR 415 (G)
  23. Held: In ordinary grammatical meanings, the term ‘aggrieved person’ or ‘aggrieved’ can be defined, a person whose legal right is involved by and complained of, he is directly and adversely affected by a judgment or decree, his substantial grievance, a denial of some personal pecuniary or property rights, interest and apart from general interest, has to be made, he has particular or special interest in the subject matter supposed to be wrongly decided. M. Malik v. Karam Elahi & another 2011 SCR 431 (O)
  24. Aggrieved person is one whose vested legal rights are infringed by an action of an authority performing the functions in connection with the affairs of the State. AJK Govt. & others v. Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University & 2 other 2014 SCR 382 (M) 2009 SCR 415, and 2010 SCR 17 rel.
  25. For the purpose of filing of writ petition — issue related to immovable property/land which vests with the Govt. — the Govt. (owner of property) has itself taken decision regarding this property whereas the Department has no grievance in this regard. Held: — no other can be treated as an aggrieved party or be more loyal than the king. Raja Tahir Majeed Khan v. Azad Govt. 2014 SCR 272 (C) 1994 CLC 1108, PLJ 1995 AJK 5, PLJ 1981 AJK (SC) 22, and 1997 SCR 330, rel.
  26. Writ — enforcement of fundamental rights and supremacy of law — for enforcement of fundamental rights of the state subjects and supremacy of law, every state subject is aggrieved person. Rehmatullah Khan & 3 others v. Azad Govt. & 13 others 2014 SCR 1385 (M) 2006 SCR 232, 2009 MLD 3112, AIR 1984 SC 802 & PLJ 2014 AJ&K 217, rel.
  27. Writ petition — no transfer of/ allotment of bus-stand — in favour of appellant/petitioner — at time of filing or disposal of writ petition — subsequent transfer/allotment does not make him an aggrieved person — It is not possible to ignore the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant is not an aggrieved person because at the time for filing and disposal of writ petition, no order for sanction of offices or stands in the general bus stand was issued in his favour. This factual position is not disputed rather admitted by the counsel for the appellant. Thus, according to the nature of the facts of this case and claim of the appellant, it can be safely concluded that neither the appellant was legally aggrieved person nor has got any cause of action file the writ petition because at the time of filing of writ petition and disposal of same through impugned judgment, he was not holding any permit/sanction or administrative order in his favour for running the offices or stands in the general bus stand. Therefore, the objection raised by the counsel for the respondent prevails and it is held that at the time of filing writ petition and disposal of same, the appellant-petitioner was not legally falling in the definition of aggrieved person, thus, the writ petition was not competent. R. Sultan Ali v. Sardar Abid Hussain & others 2016 SCR 950 (B)
  28. —a civil servant— only ,if terms and conditions of service adversely affected—according to scheme of law, civil servant can only be termed aggrieved when any order adversely affecting his legally determined terms and conditions of service is issued. If the claim of civil servant is not based upon any such legally determined or prescribed terms and conditions of service, he has got no legal cause of action or locus standi to file the appeal before the Service Tribunal. Muhammad Matloob v. Iftikhar Ahmed & others 2017 SCR 282 (E)
  29. —interest and role of petitioners—discussed and admitted in written statement— in preliminary objection—so far as the other objection regarding the status of petitioners in writ petition No. 2694/2016, is concerned , in our considered view after submission of the written statement by the respondents before the High Court this proposition requires no further deliberation. In view of the averments made in the preliminary objection (c) the petitioners (therein) appear to be aggrieved parties because the respondents have themselves mentioned the interest of the petitioners relating to the subject matter and also discussed the conduct of the petitioners. Even otherwise after dismissal of the appeal filed by the Azad Government, it remains mere academic discussion as the other appellants(petitioners in other two writ petitions) are beneficiaries of the Education Package and they are aggrieved persons by all means, thus , mere for mere academic discussion no deliberation on this point is required. Ch. Latif Akbar & others v. Azad Govt. & others 2017 SCR 305 (C)
  30. —A person who is not clothed with any right for consideration, cannot be termed as an aggrieved person for the purpose of filing appeal before the Service Tribunal. Tanveer-ul-Haq Shaheen v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1059 (C) PLJ 1992 SC (AJK) 1 rel.         
  31. —writ—maintainability of—after failure in test—petitioner not called for interview—right to challenge test—through writ petition—petitioner not an aggrieved person—no locus standi to challenge— it is an admitted position on that the petitioner took part in the written test and could not qualify for the interview which fact has not been denied by her. She does not come within the purview of the aggrieved person and had no locus standi to file writ petition before the High Court as she herself was declared ineligible to be ca1led for the interview. When she failed to get succeeded in the written test, she opted to challenge the process by Filing of the writ petition which is not permissible under law. PLA dismissed. Mehmoona Abida Kiyani v. AJ&K Govt. & others 2017 SCR 991
  32. —appellant neither candidate for post of Vice Chancellor—nor student of University—cannot challenge process—without asserting any right—and not mere being pro-bono publico—petitioner has to fulfil the conditions to invoke constitutional jurisdiction— we have failed to gather anything to ascertain that how the appellant is aggrieved by the act of respondent No. 2, herein. Neither the appellant is a candidate for the post of Vice Chancellor, nor he is student of the University, therefore, no legal right of the appellant appears to be infringed. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that as pro bono publico, he challenged the vires of the law before the High Court by filing writ petition, it may be observed that every person by his own sweet will , cannot file the writ petition as pro bono public until and unless he fulfils the conditions to invoke the  constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Fazal Mehmood Baig v. The University of AJ&K &others 2017 SCR 1380 (C)
  33. —special allowance to M.Phil. degree holders— clarification by the AJK Finance Department that holders of equivalence degree holder or qualifications are not entitled to receive M.Phil. allowance—order of keeping in abeyance the order of grant of M.Phil. allowance to the appellants by the department– -not violation of law—no terms and conditions of service of the appellants have been infringed and they do not fall within the definition of an aggrieved person. Muhammad Rizwan-ullah Khan & others vs Azad Government & others 2018 SCR 1161(D)
  34. —Held: to qualify as an aggrieved person, it is not necessary that a right in the strict juristic sense should be vested in him, yet a person must at least show that he has some interest that the respondents should act in accordance with law. Syed Nazkat Hussain v. Zeeshan Azam & others 2019 SCR 301 (B) 
  35.  —term ‘aggrieved person’—definition of—an ‘aggrieved person’ is one whose rights are threatened or being denied or whose rights have been affected by a decision—an aggrieved must be a person who has suffered a legal grievance or who must be a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something— Azad Govt. & 8 others V. Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan & 46 others 2020 SCR 591(D) 2010 SCR 17 rel.
  36. — An aggrieved is sone whose rights are threatened or being denied or whose rights have been affected by a decision. Government of Pakistan  Versus Yasir Bashir & 12 thers 2021 SCR 1 (B) 2020 SCR 591 ref.
error: Content is protected !!