2018 PLP 1995 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RASHID BHATTI — Petitioner Versus The DIRECTOR GENERAL FIA, HEADQUARTERS, ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 1995 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RASHID BHATTI — Petitioner Versus The DIRECTOR GENERAL FIA, HEADQUARTERS, ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (a) Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 1995 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (a) Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 1995 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 1995 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RASHID BHATTI — Petitioner Versus The DIRECTOR GENERAL FIA, HEADQUARTERS, ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah Noor Ghouri, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Asim Mansoor Khan, D.A.G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 14.07.2016, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Karachi Bench) in Appeal No.151(K)CS/2010)
R. 3(c)
Fundamental Rules, Pt. II, R. 17(1), proviso
Inter-se seniority
Grant for seniority in case of supersession and subsequent promotion
Petitioner, who was working as sub-inspector in BPS-14 in the Federal Investigation Agency, was superseded by several sub-Inspectors of BPS-14 on two separate occasions
Such supersession was not challenged by the petitioner at that time
Subsequently the petitioner was promoted as Inspector (BPS-16) and on assumption of such promoted office, he made representation to the department for inter-se seniority as Inspector (BPS-16)
Service Tribunal declined request of petitioner for inter-se seniority by observing that he was considered twice for promotion by the Department Promotion Committee, but superseded on each occasion by the Committee on account of many factors; that such supersession was approved by the Department Promotion Committee in its successive meetings and resultantly the petitioner could not regain his inter se seniority
Plea of petitioner that proviso to R. 17(1) of Fundamental Rules made express provision for granting of seniority in case of supersession and subsequent promotion
Proviso to R. 17(1) provided for a situation where the civil servant who was entitled to be promoted from a particular date but for no fault of his own was wrongfully prevented from rendering services in the higher post was to be paid the arrears of pay and allowances of such higher post through proforma promotion or upgradation by ante-dated fixation of seniority
Present case, however, was neither of a tenure post nor a deferment case nor that of petitioner being not promoted from a particular date for no fault of his own
Petitioner was deliberately superseded and such supersession was also endorsed by the Departmental Promotion Committee
Rule 17(1) of Fundamental Rules as relied upon by the petitioner therefore, was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused accordingly.
S. 3(2)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)
Appeal against judgment of Service Tribunal before the Supreme Court
Scope
Contention challenging vires of a service rule not raised before the Service Tribunal raised for the first time before the Supreme Court
Such plea could not be allowed by the Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMED, J.
Learned ASC for the petitioner has made two submissions one that FR-17 makes express provision for granting of seniority in case of supersession and subsequent promotion and further Rule 3(c) of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, is ultra vires to the provision of Civil Servants Act, 1973.
2. We have considered the submission of the learned ASC for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case.
3. The petitioner had filed a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal against order dated 21.10.2010 by which his request for inter se seniority as Inspector (BPS-16) was declined. The service appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Service Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 14.07.2016. The petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector (Investigation) in BPS-14 in the FIA. On 02.03.2009, he was superseded by six Sub-Inspectors (Investigation) of BPS-14 and further on 08.08.2009 another batch of 18 Sub-Inspectors superseded, the petitioner. Such supersession was not challenged by the petitioner at that time.
4. Be that as it may on 25.05.2010, the petitioner was promoted as Inspector (Investigation) (BPS-16) and on assumption of such promoted office, the petitioner made representation to the department, which as noted above was, declined by the department. The Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment has dealt with the reasons on the basis of which petitioner was superseded and in paras 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has made the following observation:- "
6. It is an admitted position that appellant was considered twice for promotion by the Department Promotion Committee, but superseded on each occasion by the committee on account of many factors contributory to including the reason as enumerated ad-seriatim in para-4(i-iv) supra, resultantly his juniors became senior to him. It is pertinent in the context of the appellant's contention that this Tribunal vide judgment dated 09.05.2016 expunged the adverse remarks recorded in the Performance Evaluation Report for the year 2004. Be that as it may, the supersession was approved by the Department Promotion Committee in its successive meetings held on 02.03.2009 and 08.08.2009 resultantly the appellant could not regain his inter se seniority. In this context, Section 3(c) of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, being relevant, is reproduced hereunder as:- (c) Civil servants eligible for promotion who could not be considered for promotion in the original reference in circumstances beyond their control or whose case was deferred while their juniors were promoted to the higher post, shall, on promotion, without supersession, take their seniority with the original batch." Underlining is ours.
7. In the presence of express provision of Rule 3(c) ibid, the appeal for regaining inter se seniority merits no consideration and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs."
5. We have gone through the provision of FR-17 and are unable to agree with the counsel for the petitioner for that the provision of FR-17 deals with the case of drawing pay and allowances attached to tenure of a post with effect from the date when the duties are assumed of that post and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. The proviso to this Rule provides for a situation where the civil servant who was entitled to be promoted from a particular date but for no fault of his own wrongfully prevented from rendering services in the higher post shall be paid the arrears of pay and allowances of such higher post through proforma promotion or upgradation by ante-dated fixation of seniority. The case before us is neither of a tenure post nor is a deferment case nor that of petitioner being not promoted from a particular date for no fault of his own. The petitioner was deliberately superseded and such supersession was also endorsed by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Rule FR-17 as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner therefore, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5(sic.) As regard the second contention of the learned ASC for the petitioner that Rule 3(c) is ultra vires the provision of the Act, we are afraid that such submission was not canvassed by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal and same cannot be allowed to be raised before this Court for the first time. No point of public importance in terms of Article 212 of the Constitution is raised. The petition is therefore, dismissed and leave refused. MWA/M-22/SC Petition dismissed.