1996SCMR 1103 (PLP)
Mian MUHAMMAD ASLAM ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the
| Citation | 1996SCMR 1103 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD ASLAM ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR 1103 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR 1103 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR 1103 (PLP) (Mian MUHAMMAD ASLAM ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate instructed by Anwar H. Mir, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 18th October, 1994.
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate instructed by Anwar H. Mir, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 15‑8‑1994 passed in Appeal No. 219(R)/1994). Federal Investigation Agency (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Rr. 12 & 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Civil service‑‑ Employee of Federal Investigation Agency‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Respondent joining technical branch of the Agency earlier in point of time than petitioner who had joined in the executive wing of the same Agency‑‑‑Petitioner was promoted while respondent was ignored‑‑‑Service Tribunal on appeal of respondent directed his promotion in place of appellant‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner claimed that he belonged to executive wing of the Agency while respondent was serving in technical wing and promotion was to be regulated within the respective wing‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether petitioner and respondent having been placed in different cadres, promotion of petitioner could not be affected by reason of respondent being senior in service. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.
This petition for leave to appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 15-8-1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad arises from the facts that Muhammad Jaafar (respondent No.4) was appointed as Constable in the technical Branch of F.I.A., Islamabad on 30-5-1977, whereas Mian Muhammad Aslam (petitioner) joined the service of F.I.A. (investigation/crime/executive group) as Constable on 9-11-1978. In the combined provisional seniority list of Constables of F.I.A., the, name of Muhammad Jaafar (respondent No.4) appeared at Serial No.20 and the name of Mian Muhammad Aslam (petitioner) at Serial No.39. It so happened that on 16-1-1994, Mian Muhammad Aslam (petitioner) was promoted as Head Constable. Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Jaafar (respondent No.4) filed an appeal before the Director-General F.I.A. On 21-4-1994, he received reply to the effect that he was at Serial No.5 in the seniority list of the Constable of Technical Wing of F.I.A. Headquarters and will be considered for promotion on his turn. So, he filed appeal before the Service Tribunal which was accepted on 15-8-1994 declaring that he (Muhammad Jaafar) being senior to Mian Muhammad Aslam (petitioner) had preferential right of promotion as Head Constable.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner belonged to investigation wing of F.I.A. while respondent No.4 was serving in the Technical Wing, which formed different cadres under the Service Regulations. The learned counsel specifically relied on rules 12 and 13 of the Federal Investigation Agency (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975, which read as under:-- '"
12. For the purposes of promotion, direct appointment and transfer the posts in the Federal Investigating Agency will be placed in the following groups, namely; (i) Investigation. (ii) Accounts. (iii) Customs. (iv) Income-tax. (v) Engineering. (vi) Legal. These groups may, for the smooth administration of the Agency and with the prior approval of the Federal Government, be added to or modified as may be considered appropriate by the Director General. 13. (1) Appointments by promotion shall ordinarily be made within the Groups mentioned in rule 12 by promotion of officers and staff working in the next lower Grade or rank on the recommendation of the appropriate Departmental Promotion Committee or the Central Selection Board, as the case may be. (2) Only those persons who are employed on regular basis in the Agency shall be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion. (3) Persons appointed in the Agency by transfer can be considered for promotion only after they have been selected to serve the Agency on regular basis." Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly contended that the petitioner and respondent No.4 having been placed in different cadres, the promotion of petitioner could not be affected by reasons of respondent No.4 being senior in service.
3. The above contentions raise questions of law of public importance and we accordingly grant leave to appeal to consider the same. A.A./M-2242/S Leave granted.