1989 PLP 1849 (SCMR)
Estalishment Division and others‑‑Petitioners Versus JALAL‑UD‑DIN AKBAR ZAIDI and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1849 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan. JJ |
| Parties | Estalishment Division and others‑‑Petitioners Versus JALAL‑UD‑DIN AKBAR ZAIDI and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | CIVIL PETITION NO. 1010 OF 1984, CIVIL PETITION No. 1011 OF 1984, CIVIL PETITION No 1013 OF 1984 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1849 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: CIVIL PETITION NO. 1010 OF 1984, CIVIL PETITION No. 1011 OF 1984, CIVIL PETITION No 1013 OF 1984, Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑, CIVIL PETITION No.277/R OF 1984 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1849 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1849 (SCMR) (Estalishment Division and others‑‑Petitioners Versus JALAL‑UD‑DIN AKBAR ZAIDI and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Riazul Hassan Gilani, Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners,
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑‑on‑Record with Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M. Saleem Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record with Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1989.
- Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court with Walayat Umar Chaudhry,
Headnotes / Summary
1989. (From the judgments, dated 23‑7‑1984 of t e Federal Service Tribunal, in Appeal No.62(L) of 1983) ‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Seniority, determination of‑‑Various accounts Services under the administrative control of federal Government were re‑‑organized and a new occupational group viz. "Accounts Group" was constituted‑‑New Inter departmental cadre was to comprise all posts of grade 17 formerly borne on the cadre of various Accounts Services of the Federal Government including 25 percent of grade 17 Accounts Posts in Telephone and Telegraph and Post Office Departments‑‑Contesting respondent at that time was holding the post of an Accounts Officer in the Telegraph and Telephone Department in a scale equivalent to grade 17‑‑In the seniority list prepared for the newly formed Accounts Group, contesting respondent was shown junior to officers who had been recruited after him‑‑Civil servant's departmental representation for fixation of his seniority from the date of his confirmation having failed, he filed appeal before Service Tribunal wherein his plea was accepted and a direction was given that his seniority should be fixed with effect from his confirmation in the grade with consequential benefit including consideration for promotion‑‑Legality‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether Service Tribunal had misconstrued the relevant Seniority Rules and the fact that Service Tribunal had come to a contrary conclusion holding that an officer who belonged to a localized cadre could not claim seniority over those who were members of an all Pakistan Service at the time the inter‑departmental cadre was constituted. Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court with Walayat Umar Chaudhry,
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These arc four petitions for special leave to appeal from the order, dated 23‑7‑1984 of the Federal Service Tribunal.
2. By memorandum, dated 23‑1‑1974 which was later amended by a memorandum issued on 3‑3‑1976, various accounts services under the administrative control of the Federal Government were re‑organized and a new occupational group, known as the Accounts Group, was constituted. After the re organization of the services inter alia an inter‑departmental cadre was set up. It was to comprise all posts in grade 17 formerly borne on the cadres of the Audit and Accounts Service, Military Accounts Service and Railway Accounts Service and 25 per cent. of grade 17 Accounts posts in Telephone and Telegraph and Pakistan Post Office Departments. Respondent No.l Syed Muhammad Jalalud Din Akbar Zaidi was at the relevant time holding the post of an Accounts Officer in the Telegraph and Telephone Department in a scale equivalent to grade
17. He had been confirmed in that post with effect from 1‑3‑1969. He fell within the 25 per cent quota which was reserved for the officers of his department in the inter‑departmental cadre. In the seniority list which was prepared for the said cadre, he was shown junior to officers who were recruited between 1909 and 1974. He made a departmental representation that in fixing his seniority his date of confirmation should be taken into account but without any success. He then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the appeal and gave a direction that his seniority should be fixed with effect from 1‑3‑1969 with consequential benefit including consideration for promotion. The Government as well as some of those who were affected by the judgment of the learned Tribunal seek leave to appeal.
3. In support of these petitions it is contended that the learned Tribunal has misconstrued the relevant seniority Rules. It is pointed out that in another case the learned Tribunal has come to a contrary conclusion holding that an officer who belonged to a localized cadre could not claim seniority over those who were members of an all‑Pakistan Service at the time the inter‑departmental cadre was constituted (sec Abdul Maqsood Khan v. Auditor General, Pakistan, Civil Appeal No.28(L) 78).
4. The contentions raised in support of these petitions need examination Leave to appeal is granted. The appeals be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. A.A./G‑206/5 Leave granted.