1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
M. A. SHAIKH Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS
| Citation | 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Chairman, Abdul Kadir and G. A. Mughal, Members |
| Parties | M. A. SHAIKH Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Chairman, Abdul Kadir and G. A. Mughal, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (M. A. SHAIKH Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
The appellant was a P. C. S. Officer and he was shown as S. No. 6 in the seniority list. He felt aggrieved of the position which was assigned to him. His representations to the Government proved futile so he filed the present appeal. The appellant was absent while we had heard the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who were present. At the outset it may be pointed out that section 3 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, Sind Act No. XIV of 1973 dated 5th December 1973 lays down that the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant shall be as provided in this Act and the rules. So section 8 of the Act is decisive with regard to the maintainability of the appeal relating to seniority.' This section reads as under : "8.‑(1) For proper administration of a service, cadre or grade, the appointing authority shall cause a seniority list of the members for the time being of such service, cadre or grade to be prepared, but nothing herein contained shall be construed' to confer any vested right to a particular seniority in such service, cadre or grade, as the case may be. (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1), the seniority of a civil servant shall be reckoned in relation to other civil servants belonging to the same service or grade, whether serving in the same department or office or not, as may be prescribed. (3) Seniority on initial appointment to a service, grade or post shall be determined as may be prescribed. (4) Seniority in the grade to which a civil servant is promoted shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade: Provided that civil servants who are selected for promotion to a higher grade in one batch shall, on their promotion to the higher grade, retain their inter se seniority as in the lower grade. Although according to the aforesaid section it is incumbent upon the administration to prepare the seniority list but at the same time this section lays down that this does not confer any vested right to a particular seniority in such a service, cadre or grade as the case may be. Thus the vested right with regard to seniority has not been conferred or in other words any such right has been taken away. So the seniority is not on of the terms and conditions of service. Consequently a civil servant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to vindicate or establish anything which is not a right. It therefore, follows that by virtue of the aforesaid section the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is barred and no appeal lies under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973. In this connection reference may also be made to rule 23 of the Sind Service Tribunal (Procedure Rules, 1974 which empowers the Full Bench of the Tribunal or some o the Members of the Tribunal to decide certain appeals but it is pertinent to note that in this rule the word "seniority" nowhere appears. Thus, it is plain enough that the Legislature never intended that the question of seniority be agitated before this Tribunal. In result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.