2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
KASHIF ZAFAR Versus POSTMASTER-GENERAL and others
| Citation | 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | KASHIF ZAFAR Versus POSTMASTER-GENERAL and others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (KASHIF ZAFAR Versus POSTMASTER-GENERAL and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sohail H.K. Rana, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Ashiq Raza, D.A.-G. and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th May, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
Equality of treatment between similarly placed employees
Civil servant was appointed as a clerk in the Postal Department after complying with all the codal formalities
Services of civil servant were terminated without any show cause notice; without providing him any opportunity of hearing and without any allegation of misconduct
Appeals filed by civil servant before Department and Service Tribunal respectively were also dismissed on the ground that his services were terminated during the probationary period
Contention of civil servant was that services of other employees of Postal Department similarly placed to him were also terminated during probationary period but they were reinstated by the Supreme Court after they forwent back benefits
Contention of Department was that civil servant was appointed on dependent quota and not on merit, and provided quota was exceeded when appointment of civil servant was made
Appointment of civil servant was not based on dependent quota rather same appeared to have been made on merit
No reason existed as to why case of civil servant should be dealt with differently than how the Supreme Court dealt with other similarly placed employees of the Department
Appeal was allowed, judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside and directions were given to reinstate the civil servant immediately but without back benefits. Karim Bux Siyal, Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services Hyderabad.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMED, J.
Upon advertisement issued by the respondent the appellant had applied for the post of Time Scale Clerk BPS-7. He was interviewed by the departmental selection committee and after complying with all codal formalities Offer Letter dated 19-8-2002 was issued to the appellant. The appellant appeared before the Civil Surgeon Hyderabad on 22-8-2002 for fitness certificate which was issued and thereafter on his reporting, he was appointed vide letter No.24-8-2002 as Time Scale Clerk BPS-7 in the Cantt. Post Office Hyderabad. The appellant was working satisfactorily in the department but all of a sudden through letter dated 30-12-2002 without any show-cause notice or any opportunity of hearing and without any allegations of misconduct, his services were terminated. The appellant after following the procedure of the departmental appeal filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which through the impugned judgment was dismissed for the reasons that his service was terminated without any stigma and during probationary period. Against such judgment the present appeal has been filed and it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that similar employees were appointed by the postal department in Karachi region and their services were also terminated during probationary period and such being challenged by such employees the Federal Service Tribunal allowed their appeals by directing their reinstatement with full back benefit which judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal was challenged by the department in this Court by Civil Appeals Nos.209-K to 216-K, 218-K, 220-K and 222-K to 227-K all of 2009. All these appeals were disposed of by the order dated 22-12-2009 as follows:
"Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that if the respondents are reinstated in service they will forgo the back benefits. Learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the petitioners has conceded the above position. By consent the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. The reinstatement shall be made within a period of 15 days as per undertaking given by the learned Deputy Attorney-General."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant will be satisfied if the appellant's case is also dealt in similar way as dealt with by this Court in the above quoted order.
3. The learned DAG in the first instance contended that the petitioner did not have enough marks in intermediate examination and then secondly, when he could not support such a submission, he contended that the appellant was appointed on the dependent quota and not on merit and that in making of such appointment the appointment of the petitioner has exceeded the provided quota.
4. On examination of the record we find that the appointment of the appellant apparently was not based on dependent quota rather the same appears to have been made on merit and such argument of the learned DAG does not hold the ground.
5. We find no reason as to why the case of the present appellant be dealt with otherwise than dealt with by this Court as noted in the above order. We therefore allow this appeal set aside the impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and issue directions to the respondent to reinstate the appellant in service immediately, but such reinstatement will be without back benefits. MWA/K-1/SC Appeal allowed.