1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Sardar ABDUL REHMAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Azad J&K |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani Member |
| Parties | Sardar ABDUL REHMAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 2 others |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil service, (c) Civil service, (a) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil service, (c) Civil service, (a) Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Azad J&K bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Sardar ABDUL REHMAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Younis Tahir for Appellant.
- Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, Addl. A: G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Sh. Abdul Aziz for Respondent No. 3.
Headnotes / Summary
Tentative seniority list drawn by department could not be proof of seniority nor it could help in determination of inter se seniority among officers in the same cadre of service
Seniority list must be prepared by appointing authority which was Government in case of civil servant who was a gazetted officer
Both opposing civil servants who were gazetted officers in same Department, their inter se seniority prepared by Department, could not be accepted unless same was duly confirmed by Government.
Respondent civil servant, admittedly was promoted in Grade 17 prior to appellant and while case of appellant for substantive Grade B-18 was still under consideration, respondent was promoted against that grade-- Appellant without securing promotion in Pay Scale B-18 against a substantive post, could not claim his seniority against respondent who had already been promoted and placed in Pay Scale B-18
Appellant whose case for promotion to substantive Grade B-18 was still under consideration, should first get his case decided and only then he could be adjudged senior to respondent.
Government, alone was competent in case of gazetted officers to make orders of promotion, posting and transfers within and outside Department
Order of promotion of gazetted officer made by Secretary of the Department who had no powers and jurisdiction to make such order, was ab initio void and could not sustain.
Judgment & Decree
Tentative seniority list drawn by department could not be proof of seniority nor it could help in determination of inter se seniority among officers in the same cadre of service
Seniority list must be prepared by appointing authority which was Government in case of civil servant who was a gazetted officer
Both opposing civil servants who were gazetted officers in same Department, their inter se seniority prepared by Department, could not be accepted unless same was duly confirmed by Government. (b) Civil service
Respondent civil servant, admittedly was promoted in Grade 17 prior to appellant and while case of appellant for substantive Grade B-18 was still under consideration, respondent was promoted against that grade-- Appellant without securing promotion in Pay Scale B-18 against a substantive post, could not claim his seniority against respondent who had already been promoted and placed in Pay Scale B-18
Appellant whose case for promotion to substantive Grade B-18 was still under consideration, should first get his case decided and only then he could be adjudged senior to respondent. (c) Civil service
Government, alone was competent in case of gazetted officers to make orders of promotion, posting and transfers within and outside Department
Order of promotion of gazetted officer made by Secretary of the Department who had no powers and jurisdiction to make such order, was ab initio void and could not sustain. Muhammad Younis Tahir for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, Addl. A: G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Sh. Abdul Aziz for Respondent No. 3.