2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another Versus RAJA MUHAMMAD PASHA JANJUA, LABOUR OFFICER, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another Versus RAJA MUHAMMAD PASHA JANJUA, LABOUR OFFICER, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another Versus RAJA MUHAMMAD PASHA JANJUA, LABOUR OFFICER, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aziz Ahmed Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th March, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(For leave to appeal from judgment dated 22‑10‑2002 passes by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in appeal No.403 of 1995). Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.7‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Civil servant duly appointed on regular basis much earlier than others could not be relegated to a junior position.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against judgment dated 22‑10‑2002 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby Appeal No.403 of 1995 of the respondent No.1 was accepted.
2. The respondent No.1 was appointed as a Labour Officer (BS‑161, by selection through the Public Service Commission. The respondents Nos.3 4 and 5 were promoted as Labour Officers (BS‑16) with effect from 1‑12‑1988 whereas‑ the respondents Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7 were promoted as such with effect from 2‑1‑1995. However, in the seniority list of the Labour Officers, as circulated by the department, the respondents Nos.2 to 8 were shown senior to the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 preferred appeal No.403 of 1995 against relegation of his seniority position by the department vis‑a‑vis the respondents Nos.2 to
8. The appeal of the respondent No. 1 was accepted by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 22‑10‑2002.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents Nos.2 to 8 had been rightly shown, in the seniority list, as, senior to the respondent No. 1 for the reason that the vacant posts of Labour Officers against Departmental quota could not be filled on time.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. Admittedly, the respondent No. 1 was duly appointed as a Labour Officer (BS‑16), on regular much earlier than the respondents Nos.2 to
8. The provisions of section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, lay down that seniority of a civil servant shall be reckoned' from the date of regular appointment to the post. Therefore, the Tribunals was quite justified in its approach to rectify an obvious error made by the departmental authorities in relegating the respondents No. 1 to a junior position against all canons of justice and fair play. The impugned, judgment does not suffer, from any legal infirmity. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. S.A.K./S‑285/S Petition dismissed.