1991 PLP 1348 (SCMR)
RAFAQAT HUSSAIN SHAH and others — Petitioners Versus CHAIRMAN, POFs. WAH CANTT. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1348 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Rustam S. Sidhwa |
| Parties | RAFAQAT HUSSAIN SHAH and others — Petitioners Versus CHAIRMAN, POFs. WAH CANTT. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973), ORDER, Respondent No.4 joined POFs as Assistant Manager (Public Relations) in August 1976 in response to an open advertisement published by POFs Board in 1976. To better his prospects, the respondent No.4 secured transfer in Auxiliary Cadre and was transferred to the post of AM (Aux) with effect from 14-7-1981. The petitioners, in the meanwhile, were promoted to the post of Works Manager (Aux) in officiating capacity on different dates in 1982 and were regularised in 1986. However, in the seniority list of Works Managers (AUX) published in 1985 the respondent No.4 was shown to be senior to them in the cadre of WM (AUX). The petitioners, therefore, submitted representations against the aforesaid seniority position. These representations were accepted vide order, dated 4-12-1988, which is re-produced below: |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1348 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), ORDER, Respondent No.4 joined POFs as Assistant Manager (Public Relations) in August 1976 in response to an open advertisement published by POFs Board in 1976. To better his prospects, the respondent No.4 secured transfer in Auxiliary Cadre and was transferred to the post of AM (Aux) with effect from 14-7-1981. The petitioners, in the meanwhile, were promoted to the post of Works Manager (Aux) in officiating capacity on different dates in 1982 and were regularised in 1986. However, in the seniority list of Works Managers (AUX) published in 1985 the respondent No.4 was shown to be senior to them in the cadre of WM (AUX). The petitioners, therefore, submitted representations against the aforesaid seniority position. These representations were accepted vide order, dated 4-12-1988, which is re-produced below: as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1348 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Rustam S. Sidhwa.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1348 (SCMR) (RAFAQAT HUSSAIN SHAH and others — Petitioners Versus CHAIRMAN, POFs. WAH CANTT. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1990.
- M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment, dated 23-5-1990 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.72(R)/89).
Art.212(3)
Respondent who originally was appointed as Assistant Manager (Public Relations), subsequently, to better his prospects, secured transfer in Auxiliary cadre in which petitioners were already appointed and were regularised prior to transfer of respondent
Respondent was shown to be senior to petitioners in the seniority list
Post to which respondent was originally appointed and post to which petitioners were appointed before transfer of respondent admittedly had different prescribed qualifications, different age limits, different pay scales and different avenues of promotion
Petitioners contended that those two different posts could not be grouped together under common seniority and that even if it was assumed that transfer of respondent from his original post to cadre of petitioners was legal, respondent could claim seniority only from date of joining cadre of petitioners after his transfer from his original post and not from date when he joined his original post (Assistant Manager, Public Relations)
Contention of petitioners requiring further consideration, leave to appeal was granted. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.
The petitioners and respondent No.4 are employees in P.O.F. Pakistan Ordinance Factory, Wah. In POFs there are following three major service groups: (i) Technical Cadre: Comprising Assistant Manager (BS-17), Manager (BS-18), General Manager (BS-19) and MDs (BS-20) in different Engineering disciplines. (ii) Medical Cadre: Comprising GDMO (BS-17/18) and Specialist (BS-19/20) pertaining to different disciplines of Medical Science. (iii) Auxiliary Cadre: Comprising Assistant Works Manager (BS-17), Works Manager (BS-18), Superintendent/General Manager (BS-19) of Administrative disciplines. In addition to the above mentioned three major service groups, there exist a few "Specialized" sub-groups having their own independent service structures viz: (a) Fire-Fighting Group, which comprises Fire Officer (BS-16), Assistant Works Manager Fire-Fighting (BS-17) and Works Manager Fire- Fighting (BS-18). (b) Public Relations Cell, comprising Asstt. News Editor ANE (BS-16), Asstt. Manager (Public Relations)/PRO (BS-17) and Manager (Public Relations) BS-18. In 1974 in response to an open advertisement published by the POFs Board for appointment of Assistant Works Manager (AWM) Auxiliary, the present ,petitioners! were, after interview, selected and appointed in the first instance as AWM (Trainees) and subsequently as AWM (Auxiliary) on regular basis. Their date of appointment as AWM (Trainees) and AWM (Regular) is as follows: Trainee Regular (i) Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah 6-1-1975 9-12-1976 (ii) Mr. Mehboob Ahmad 14-3-1975 9-12-1976 (iii) Syed Nadeem Haider 6-1-1975 9-12-1976 (iv) Mr. Zaffar Hameed Bhatti 10-2-1975 9-12-1976 "Your application on the subject was referred to the Government for a decision. Keeping in view the facts of the case, it has been decided that seniority of Mr. Shaheen Iqbal (Pl. No. 982371) (respondent No.4 herein) in the Auxiliary Cadre as AWM/Auxiliary may be allowed to count w.e.f. 14-7-1981 i.e. the date of his transfer to the Auxiliary Cadre from AM/Public Relations." Feeling aggrieved by this decision, the respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, Islamabad. This has been accepted and the Service Tribunal has held that respondent No.4 was entitled to count his seniority from the date he joined the specialised post of Assistant Manager (Public Relations) i.e. 19-8-1976. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners have, in support of this petition for special leave to appeal, submitted inter alia, that the specialized group of Public Relations had its .own hierarchy wherein Assistant Manager (Public Relations) BS-17 can be promoted as Manager (Public Relations) BS-18. The respondent No.4, however, instead of waiting for his turn for promotion in his own laid down channel switched over to Auxiliary Cadre through an unauthorised option which was illegally accepted by the Department. In fact, the post of AM (Public Relations) and AWN (Aux) had different prescribed qualifications, different age limits, different pay scales and different avenues of promotion. As such these two different posts could not be grouped together under a common seniority and even if it was assumed that the transfer of respondent No.4 to the Auxiliary Cadre was legal, even then respondent No.4 could claim seniority only from the date of joining the Auxiliary Cadre i.e. 14-7-1981 and not from 19-8-1976 when he joined as Assistant Manager (Public Relations). These contentions, amongst others, require further consideration. Leave I is, accordingly, granted. Early hearing. H.B.T./R-170/S Leave granted.
Judgment & Decree
In addition to the above mentioned three major service groups, there exist a few "Specialized" sub‑groups having their own independent service structures viz: (a) Fire‑Fighting Group, which comprises Fire Officer (BS‑16), Assistant Works Manager Fire‑Fighting (BS‑17) and Works Manager Fire‑ Fighting (BS‑18). (b) Public Relations Cell, comprising Asstt. News Editor ANE (BS‑16), Asstt. Manager (Public Relations)/PRO (BS‑17) and Manager (Public Relations) BS‑
18. In 1974 in response to an open advertisement published by the POFs Board for appointment of Assistant Works Manager (AWM) Auxiliary, the present ,petitioners! were, after interview, selected and appointed in the first instance as AWM (Trainees) and subsequently as AWM (Auxiliary) on regular basis. Their date of appointment as AWM (Trainees) and AWM (Regular) is as follows: Trainee???????????? Regular (i)???????? Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah????????????????????????????? 6‑1‑1975???????????????????? 9‑12‑1976 (ii)??????? Mr. Mehboob Ahmad????????????????????????????????????? 14‑3‑1975?????????????????? 9‑12‑1976 (iii)?????? Syed Nadeem Haider?????????????????????????????????????? 6‑1‑1975???????????????????? 9‑12‑1976 (iv)?????? Mr. Zaffar Hameed Bhatti???????????????????????????????? 10‑2‑1975?????????????????? 9‑12‑1976 Respondent No.4 joined POFs as Assistant Manager (Public Relations) in August 1976 in response to an open advertisement published by POFs Board in 1976. To better his prospects, the respondent No.4 secured transfer in Auxiliary Cadre and was transferred to the post of AM (Aux) with effect from 14‑7‑1981. The petitioners, in the meanwhile, were promoted to the post of Works Manager (Aux) in officiating capacity on different dates in 1982 and were regularised in 1986. However, in the seniority list of Works Managers (AUX) published in 1985 the respondent No.4 was shown to be senior to them in the cadre of WM (AUX). The petitioners, therefore, submitted representations against the aforesaid seniority position. These representations were accepted vide order, dated 4‑12‑1988, which is re‑produced below:‑‑ "Your application on the subject was referred to the Government for a decision. Keeping in view the facts of the case, it has been decided that seniority of Mr. Shaheen Iqbal (Pl. No. 982371) (respondent No.4 herein) in the Auxiliary Cadre as AWM/Auxiliary may be allowed to count w.e.f. 14‑7‑1981 i.e. the date of his transfer to the Auxiliary Cadre from AM/Public Relations." Feeling aggrieved by this decision, the respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, Islamabad. This has been accepted and the Service Tribunal has held that respondent No.4 was entitled to count his seniority from the date he joined the specialised post of Assistant Manager (Public Relations) i.e. 19‑8‑1976. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners have, in support of this petition for special leave to appeal, submitted inter alia, that the specialized group of Public Relations had its .own hierarchy wherein Assistant Manager (Public Relations) BS‑17 can be promoted as Manager (Public Relations) BS‑
18. The respondent No.4, however, instead of waiting for his turn for promotion in his own laid down channel switched over to Auxiliary Cadre through an unauthorised option which was illegally accepted by the Department. In fact, the post of AM (Public Relations) and AWN (Aux) had different prescribed qualifications, different age limits, different pay scales and different avenues of promotion. As such these two different posts could not be grouped together under a common seniority and even if it was assumed that the transfer of respondent No.4 to the Auxiliary Cadre was legal, even then respondent No.4 could claim seniority only from the date of joining the Auxiliary Cadre i.e. 14‑7‑1981 and not from 19‑8‑1976 when he joined as Assistant Manager (Public Relations). These contentions, amongst others, require further consideration. Leave I is, accordingly, granted. Early hearing.??? H.B.T./R‑170/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.