1987 PLP 99 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF CHAUHAN and others Petitioners Versus SARFRAZ KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 99 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF CHAUHAN and others Petitioners Versus SARFRAZ KHAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 99 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 99 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 99 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF CHAUHAN and others Petitioners Versus SARFRAZ KHAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 392/R of 1985).
- Munir A. Shaikh, Deputy A.‑G. and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 398/R of 1985).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both C .Ps.) .
- Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 6‑7‑1985 passed in Appeal No. 392(11) of 1984). ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S.8‑‑Seniority‑ Surplus officer when absorbed in other department‑‑Decision by Establishment Division‑‑Validity of. Policy decision about seniority contained in Establishment Division O.M. No.2/66/79‑D.III, dated 7‑6‑1980, declared invalid by Federal Service Tribunal on ground that it lacked statutory backing and was without basis. Leave to appeal granted to consider inter alia contention that on relevant date port-folio relating to Establishment Division being with President, it would be deemed to have his approval and thus it could not be said that there was no statutory backing for said memo:
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Same judgment is impugned in these two petitions, therefore, they are being disposed of together. Leave to appeal has been sought in these petitions from judgment, dated 6th July,1985, of the Central Service Tribunal; whereby the service appeal of Sarfraz Khan Jadoon respondent regarding seniority, was allowed. Muhammad Yousaf Chuhan petitioner in C.P.392‑R of 1985 was working as Deputy Controller in the Weights and Measures Department, a subordinate office of the Ministry of Industries, since 23rd of November,1973. This Department was abolished on 30th June,1980. Muhammad Yousaf Chauhan was declared surplus on 24‑9‑1979 as a result of economy‑cut on the direction of the President and was absorbed on 1‑4‑1980 in the Ministry of Education as Senior Research Officer. Sarfraz Khan Jadoon respondent who was already working in the Ministry of Education was appointed as Research Officer in the same Ministry on 20th of January,1973, and was promoted as Senior Research Officer in B.P.S.18 on 16‑4‑1977. The question of seniority of both the officers, namely, Muhammad Yousaf Chauhan petitioner and Sarfraz Khan respondent when, they were working in the Ministry of Education was resolved by making reference to the Establishment Division's O.M. No.2/66/79‑D.III, dated 7th June, 1980. It provided that an officer rendered surplus in one Department when absorbed in another Department would carry the seniority in his original Department. Thus, by application of this Memo. Muhammad Yousaf Chauhan petitioner was declared senior to Sarfraz Khan respondent. Sarfraz Khan's representations were turned down by the Department. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which having been allowed, the Federation of Pakistan and Muhammad Yousaf Chauhan have now sought leave to appeal through these independently filed petitions. Learned Deputy Attorney‑General has, inter alia, contended that the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the Memo, dated 7th June,1980, was invalid as it had no statutory backing is without basis. According to him, the portfolio relating to Establishment Division was with the President on 7th June,1980, and it would be deemed to have the approval of the President. That being so, it could not be said that there was no statutory backing for the said Memo. This and other points raised in these petitions require examination. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted in both of them. The operation of the impugned judgment is suspended meanwhile. M. I. Leave granted.