1989SCMR552 (PLP)
SALAHUDDIN and 16 others — Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary
| Citation | 1989SCMR552 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Shafiur Rahman, Javid lgbal, Usman Ali Shah and Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | SALAHUDDIN and 16 others — Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Primary Education Ordinance (XXIX of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR552 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Primary Education Ordinance (XXIX of 1912) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR552 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Shafiur Rahman, Javid lgbal, Usman Ali Shah and Naimuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR552 (PLP) (SALAHUDDIN and 16 others — Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants.
- M. Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab and Rao I Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Nos.] to 4.
- Date of hearing: 9th October, 1988.
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
- M. Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab and Rao I Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Nos.] to 4.
- 5. Mr. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Appellants contended that by section 6(b) of the Ordinance as amended the other staff employed by a local Council in connection with the Primary Education stoop transferred for service to and employment in Government on the same terms and conditions as are applicable from time to time to teachers and staff of corresponding categories in Government service. This clearly shows that such staff was to integrate with their corresponding categories with all the benefits including the terms and conditions of service as are applicable to them. The appellants were, therefore, entitled to avail of the benefit of tire prior service rendered by them in a particular category or class. This, according to the learned counsel, was made abundantly clear when in 1979 the Government, in the ' concerned department conveyed the decision can this controversial question by clearly indicating that "seniority is to be determined in each grade from the date of continuous officiating in the respective grades". The Seniority List so prepared correctly reflected the decision and no exception or objection could be taken to it. This was notwithstanding the fact that the appellants formally became Government employees on 1‑7‑1962. He also objected to the competence of the appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that no representation or appeal had been filed before the competent authority and having not exhausted the departmental remedies, they could not approach the Tribunal for relief in the matter.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated, 1-3-1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Case No.364/625 of 1979).
S.6--Employees of ministerial establishment--Seniority--Fixation of--trio specific provision made by Government about fixation of seniority--Effect- Provisions of Ordinance XXIX of 1962 do not entitle an employee to claim benefit of earlier service rendered as, Government servant--Service rendered with other employer normally could not count for any purpose as Government service, unless there was a specific provision made by the competent authority--Mere opinion or advice of Services, General Administration and Information Department of the Government would not be sufficient to annul or modify a decision of the Government taken by the Governor or in the name of the Government, wherein no provision for conferring seniority on basis of continuous officiation in the grade had been made. (b) West Pakistan Primary Education Ordinance (XXIX of 1962)
S.6--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)--Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4--Seniority--Fixation of--Competence of appeal before Service Tribunal--Appellants' plea that no representation or appeal having been filed before competent authority and having not exhausted departmental remedies, respondents could not approach Service Tribunal for relief, repelled- Representation was in fact addressed to the officer higher than the officer circulating the list--Impugned seniority list purported to give effect to the decision of the Government itself--Appeal being devoid of merit was dismissed in circumstances. Respondents Nos.5 to 39: Ex parts,.
Judgment & Decree
in their respective cadres. You are, therefore, requested to please prepare integrated Seniority Lists of all officials/officers of your respective Regions and circulate them among all concerned to have their objections, if any. This measure has been found necessary with a view to achieve uniformity of treatment and administrative procedure relating to personnel in Government employment ab initio and the staff provincialized under the Primary Education Ordinance. If any further clarification is needed, a reference may be made to the Education Department quoting actual instances." The second legal instrument placed on record is an Order of the Governor dated 24‑9‑1977 in terms hereunder:‑‑ "In supersession of all previous instructions on the subject the Governor of the Punjab on the recommendations of the Committee set up by the Education Department vide Memo. of even ‑number dated 17‑12‑1976 and in consultation with the Services General Administration and Information Department is pleased to order the merger of all categories of the Ministerial staff of the Provincialized Cadre in the Education Department, Lahore Division which was taken over under the West Pakistan Primary Education Ordinance, 1962 and the Local Councils High Schools (Taking Over) Ordinance, 1970 with the corresponding categories of the'Ministerial Staff of the Regular Cadre with effect from the dates of promulgation of the said Ordinances as has been done ;.: other Divisions of the Province.
2. The Governor of Punjab is further pleased to order that the merger of all categories of the Ministerial Staff of the Provincialized Cadres with the corresponding categories of the Ministerial Staff of the regular cadre should be completed in accordance with the aforesaid policy in other Divisions of the Province as well." The third legal instrument, the one on which the Appellants rely, is of 20th May, 1979, and it reads as hereunder:‑‑ "The case was referred to the Services General Administration and Information Department and that Department has advised that the seniority is to be determined in each grade from the date of continuous officiating in the respective grades while preparing the combined seniority list of the provincialized ministerial staff merged into the Government Education Department.
3. You are, therefore, requested to finalize the combined seniority list immediately and decide all the pending cases of promotions under intimation to this Department within a fortnight." Now the question is whether the conferring of seniority on the appellants by giving them the benefit of continuous officiation in the grade is in conformity wrath the law on the subject or has it been competently ordered.
8. The Ordinance as amended, makes no provision for conferring seniority on the basis of continuous officiation in the grade. The Governor who was the competent authority has not done so and in fact the first two instructions and the decisions reproduced above give a clear indication to the contrary. In this background of law and other legal instruments, the advice of the Services, General Administration and Information Department communicated on 20th B May, 1979 could not prevail. The mere opinion or advice of the Services, General Administration and Information Department was not sufficient to annul or modify a decision of the Government taken by the Governor or in the name. of the Government. Seniority being matter not protected, the benefit of continuous officiation could not be extended to the appellants. The decision of the Tribunal is correct on merits.
9. As regards the preliminary objection with regard to the competence of the Appeal before the Tribunal, we find that it has not been specifically dealt with by the Tribunal. However, we find that a representation was m fact filed but was addressed to the Director. The contention is that the Director had finalized the seniority list and he could not be the recipient of the representation as well. It appears from the documents filed that the seniority list was circulated under the signatures of Deputy Director of Education acting in the matter for Director of Education. In the circumstances, the representation was addressed to the Officer higher than the Officer circulating the impugned list. Even otherwise, we find that the impugned seniority list purported to give effect to the decision of the Government itself. This technical objection has no great merit. The Director not only entertained the representation but also proceeded to reject it. The Appeal is found without merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./S‑220/S Appeal dismissed.