1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
FASIHUDDIN SIDDIQUI and 7 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
| Citation | 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Actg. CJ. and Mamoon Kazi, J |
| Parties | FASIHUDDIN SIDDIQUI and 7 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Actg. CJ. and Mamoon Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (FASIHUDDIN SIDDIQUI and 7 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Kh. M. Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 3 to 18.
- Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 5-9-1996 passed in Appeals Nos. 321-R to 328-R of 1996).
S. 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Inter se seniority-- Civil servants complained that in seniority list they were shown junior to respondents
Civil servants after exhausting departmental remedies filed appeal before Service Tribunal which were dismissed
Perusal of judgment of Service Tribunal indicated that it had decided case of civil servants in accordance with the view taken by Supreme Court in Muhammad Yousaf's case (1996 SCMR 1279) whereby departmental promotees would be regarded senior to direct recruits of the same year
No ground had been urged on behalf of civil servants before Service Tribunal indicating that rule laid down by Supreme Court in the said judgment had not been followed in civil servant's case
Civil servant's appeals were, thus, rightly dismissed by Service Tribunal
Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances. Muhammad Yousaf v. Abdul Rasheed 1996 SCMR 1279 and Muhammad Boota's case Appeal No. 124(R) of 1993 rel. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
MAMOON KAZI, J.
This judgment disposes of Civil Petitions Nos. 677 of 1996, 678 of 1996, 679 of 1996, 680 of 1996, 681 of 1996, 682 of 1996, 683 of 1996 and 684 of 1996.
2. The petitioners were working as Superintendents in Pay Scale B-16, in Pakistan Postal Services Corporation. A seniority list, vide Memorandum dated 13-5-1996, was issued by respondent No. 2-, wherein the petitioners were shown junior to the private respondents. The petitioners, after exhausting their departmental remedies, filed their respective appeals before the Service Tribunal, which were dismissed, and hence the present petitions, for leave to appeal.
3. The Tribunal, vide its common judgment, dated 5-9-1996, came to a conclusion that the said seniority list was issued in pursuance of the earlier directions of the Tribunal, which was in consonance with the view taken by this Court in Muhammad Yousuf's case (1996 SCMR 1279), wherein the question of inter se seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits and departmental promotees had been settled. The Tribunal also referred to its own judgment in the case of Muhammad Boota (Appeal No. 124(R) of 1993). The Tribunal, on the basis of the said judgments, came to a conclusion that the seniority in the case of the petitioners had been rightly determined by the said respondent.
4. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal has decided the case of the petitioners in accordance with the view taken by this Court in Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdul Rasheed (supra). The question in regard to inter se seniority between the promotees and direct appointments was to be determined in accordance with the guide-lines provided in the said judgment. No such ground appears to have been urged on behalf of the petitioners before the Tribunal indicating that the rule laid down by the said judgment of this Court had not been followed in the petitioners' case. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal.
5. Since no infirmity can be found in the judgment of the Tribunal, leave is refused. A.A./F-14/S Leave refused.