P L D 1994 Supreme Court 564 (PLP)
Syed ISRAR ALI CHISHTI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the
| Citation | P L D 1994 Supreme Court 564 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servant (petitioner) had not taken any steps to challenge the statement of fact alleged by the department before the Service Tribunal by way of rebuttal‑‑‑No flaw or legal infirmity was found in the reasons assigned by the Service Tribunal in dismissing appeal of civil servant‑‑ Civil servant himself opted for a specific post and declined to accept promotion in the department for 14 months and in such circumstances official next junior to him was promoted‑‑‑Promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority and since other employees were senior, they were promoted before the civil servant (petitioner)‑‑‑Claim of civil servant (petitioner) for promotion on the basis of seniority in the cadre thus was rightly rejected by the department and no exception could be taken to dismissal of his service appeal before Tribunal‑‑ Petition for leave to appeal against the promotion of other employees was dismissed in circumstances‑‑‑Civil servant (petitioner), however, could seek his reversion to his original cadre and then agitate question of his seniority before the department in accordance with the Rules. p. 567 A & B |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Sajjad Ali Shah |
| Parties | Syed ISRAR ALI CHISHTI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Supreme Court 564 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Supreme Court 564 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servant (petitioner) had not taken any steps to challenge the statement of fact alleged by the department before the Service Tribunal by way of rebuttal‑‑‑No flaw or legal infirmity was found in the reasons assigned by the Service Tribunal in dismissing appeal of civil servant‑‑ Civil servant himself opted for a specific post and declined to accept promotion in the department for 14 months and in such circumstances official next junior to him was promoted‑‑‑Promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority and since other employees were senior, they were promoted before the civil servant (petitioner)‑‑‑Claim of civil servant (petitioner) for promotion on the basis of seniority in the cadre thus was rightly rejected by the department and no exception could be taken to dismissal of his service appeal before Tribunal‑‑ Petition for leave to appeal against the promotion of other employees was dismissed in circumstances‑‑‑Civil servant (petitioner), however, could seek his reversion to his original cadre and then agitate question of his seniority before the department in accordance with the Rules. p. 567 A & B bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Sajjad Ali Shah.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Supreme Court 564 (PLP) (Syed ISRAR ALI CHISHTI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sabihuddin Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Majida Rizvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February 1994,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 31‑8‑1993 passed in Appeal No. 64(K)/92). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servant (petitioner) had not taken any steps to challenge the statement of fact alleged by the department before the Service Tribunal by way of rebuttal‑‑‑No flaw or legal infirmity was found in the reasons assigned by the Service Tribunal in dismissing appeal of civil servant‑‑ Civil servant himself opted for a specific post and declined to accept promotion in the department for 14 months and in such circumstances official next junior to him was promoted‑‑‑Promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority and since other employees were senior, they were promoted before the civil servant (petitioner)‑‑‑Claim of civil servant (petitioner) for promotion on the basis of seniority in the cadre thus was rightly rejected by the department and no exception could be taken to dismissal of his service appeal before Tribunal‑‑ Petition for leave to appeal against the promotion of other employees was dismissed in circumstances‑‑‑Civil servant (petitioner), however, could seek his reversion to his original cadre and then agitate question of his seniority before the department in accordance with the Rules. [p. 567] A & B Government of Punjab and others v. Muhammad Owais Shahid and others 1991 SCMR 696 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑The above two Civil Appeals Nos. 670 and 683 of 1992 are with the leave of this Court against the judgments dated 25‑4‑1992 and 31‑5‑1992 passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeals Nos. 184(K)/1988 and 124(K)/1991 filed by the present two appellants in the above two appeals against the order of retirement and termination of service, dismissing the same on the ground that their above appeals were not competent before the Tribunal as they were not civil servants. Leave to appeal was granted in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Faseehuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt and others 1993 SCMR 1, in which it has been .held that the officers and members of Airports Security Forces remained civil servants in spite of the amendments made in the Airports Security Force Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Act, 1975 (LXXVII of 1975), hereinafter referred to as the Act by Airports Security Force (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984 (XXV of 1984), hereinafter referred to as the Amending Ordinance.
2. It appears that on 27‑11‑1993, Airports Security Force (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, was promulgated whereby following subsection (4) was added to section 7‑A of the Act:‑‑ "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, except the authorities specified in subsections (1) and (2) of section 7F, no other authority, tribunal or Court shall have jurisdiction to vary, modify, alter, annul, set aside, revise or review any order passed by any officer of the Force, authorized under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (XXXIX of 1952):"
3. We had issued notice to the learned Attorney‑General to assist the Court on the question as to the effect of the above amendment in the Act. In response to the above notice, Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, learned Attorney General has put in appearance today. His argument was that Legislature was competent to take away the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or of the Court in service matters by the above amendment. However, he candidly conceded that the above amendment cannot operate retrospectively. It is not necessary for us in the present case to examine the vires of the above amendment as it is an admitted position that in the present appeals, the Tribunal declined to exercise jurisdiction when above subsection (4) of section 7‑A of the Act was not on the Statute Book. In this view of the matter, the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Faseehuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt and others (supra) is very much applicable to the above two appeals. Mr. Shahudul Haq, learned Standing Counsel who appeared for official respondents, is unable to show that the above incorporated subsection (4) to section 7A was applicable to the present cases.
4. We would, therefore, allow the above two appeals and set aside the Tribunal's above judgments and would remand the case to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the above appeals on merits. However, there would be no order to costs. M.BA./T‑97/S Appeals allowed.