2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).

By this single judgment, we shall dispose of the above-mentioned three appeals, which are based on identical facts and law.

2. The Appellants had joined the respondents-Department on different dates. They had been working as IBRL (BS-9). They were promoted to BS-11 and were re-designated as Assistant Superintendent (BRL) w.e.f. 1-7-1994. On 29-6-1999, under the orders of Respondent No.1., the Respondents abolished the post of ASSRLs B-15 (SG and B-11). Consequently, the Appellants were accommodated against the post of APM Counter under the order of respondent No.1. Being aggrieved the such orders, the appellants sent representations on 30-6-1999 to the respondent No.1 praying that they be adjusted against the post of Assistant Superintendent Post Offices. Their request was rejected on 6-2-2002, which rejection was conveyed to them by the respondent No.3 on 13-7-2002.

3. After rejection of their representations, the Appellants filed appeals under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 before the Tribunal within time on 10-8-2002. It has been stated by the appellants that they had made the representation to the respondent No.1 on the basis of the judgment dated 23-7-2001 delivered by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore Bench in Appeal Nos.1371(L)/99 and others (Shams- uz-Zaman and others v. Director-General, Pakistan Post Office Department, Islamabad and others) complaining that the change of cadre of the appellants was made without obtaining any option from them and without providing any opportunity of personal hearing. It has further been stated that in view of the above judgment of the FST Lahore, the respondents-Department was bound to extend the benefit of the judgment of the FST Lahore to the appellants without any formal application made by them, but the respondents did not give such benefits to the appellants, The appellants have, therefore, prayed as under: "a. to set aside the order dated 29-6-1999 in view of judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Federal Service Tribunal Lahore in identical appeals decided on 23-7-2001. b. The respondent be directed to adjust the appellant in his original cadre against the vacant post in the same cadre of Assistant Supdt., as per service structure and seniority position. c. Cost of the appeal. d. Any other relief as the hon'ble Court may deem proper and fit under the circumstances of the case."

3. The respondents filed their written comments.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that on facts and merit, the case of the appellants is identical to the case of appellants in Appeal Nos.1371(L)/99 and others (Shams-uz-Zaman and others v. Director-General, Pakistan Post Office Department, Islamabad and others); hence, the appellants are entitled to the same relief as given to the appellant in the said judgment. The learned counsel has relied on 1996 SCMR 1185 (Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others).

6. The operative part of the FST's judgment Lahore Bench is reproduced as under:- "6: To sum up, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the impugned order regarding change of cadre by which both the factions are aggrieved, was passed without obtaining any option from the appellants or without providing any opportunity of being heard. In the circumstances, the appeals are accepted, the impugned order to the extent of the appellants is set aside and the respondents are directed either to adjust the appellants in their original cadre against the vacant posts lying in various branches in the same cadre of Assistant Superintendent BPS-11, or provide the appellants an opportunity of personal hearing or option for the purpose of change of cadre as required under rules and adjust the appellants according to their service structure and seniority position." The learned Counsel for the respondents has not been able to rebut the case of the appellants on facts and law.

7. Since the case of Appellants is exactly identical to the case of the appellants in the above-mentioned appeals, we are inclined to extend the benefits of the said judgment of Lahore Bench of FST to the appellants herein, relying on the above-mentioned authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- "

If the Service Tribunal or Supreme Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers only the case of civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of such judgment by Service Tribunal/Supreme Court be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Service Tribunals or any other forum."

8. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi supra, we allow the appeals in terms of the judgment in Appeal Nos.1371(L)/99 and others (Shams-uz-Zaman and others, v. Director General Pakistan Post Office Department, Islamabad and others), reproduced above.

9. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

10. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters. H.B.T./122/FST Appeals allowed.