1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
M.A. RASHID RANA Versus SECRETARY, HOME, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and 18 others
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, C. J., Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | M.A. RASHID RANA Versus SECRETARY, HOME, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and 18 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C. J., Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (M.A. RASHID RANA Versus SECRETARY, HOME, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and 18 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- K.M.A. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehar Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Gul Zarin Kiyani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 (in C.Ps. Nos. 480, 498, 499, 500 and 501 of 1995).
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 9 (in C.Ps. Nos. 498, 499, 500 and 501 of 1995).
- Date of hearing: 24th October, 1995.
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi,
- 2. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents supporting impugned decisions of the Service Tribunal has submitted that non‑joining of petitioner as a party before the Service Tribunal is not material for the reason that decision of Service Tribunal is judgment in personam and not judgment in rem hence is not binding on him and he can file departmental appeal when seniority list is published and if his grievance is not redressed then can file service appeal before the Service Tribunal. In this context Mr. Samdani, counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Notification dated 28‑5‑1995 (at page 75 of paper‑book of C.P.499 of 1995), in which it is mentioned specifically that seniority of DSP Zulfiqar Ahmad is settled in pursuance of the Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment dated 14‑3‑1995, hence departmental proceedings and availing remedy before the Service Tribunal would not serve any useful purpose. In the circumstances claim is reiterated that petitioner should have been joined in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal as necessary party.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments/orders of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 16‑6‑1994, 26‑6‑1994 and 14‑3‑1995 passed respectively in Appeals Nos. 451/94, 1224/93 and 918/94, and dated 28‑8‑1994 passed in Appeal No. 351 of 1994 and dated 28‑4‑1993 passed in Appeal No. 118 of 1992). Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 7‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I.,R. 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil servant‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Respondent had been given anti‑dated confirmation with jump of six and half years with the result that seniority of civil servant (petitioner) and his opportunity of promotion were seriously jeopardized‑‑‑Civil servant (petitioner) referred to Notification dated 28‑5‑1995 in which it was specifically mentioned that seniority of respondent had been settled in pursuance of Service Tribunal's judgment dated 14‑3‑1995‑‑‑Civil servant (petitioner) claimed that departmental proceedings and availing remedy before Service Tribunal would not serve any useful purpose and that civil servant should have been joined in proceedings before Service Tribunal as necessary party‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine; whether it was necessary to join petitioner as necessary party in proceedings before Service Tribunal; and whether decisions of Service Tribunal were judgments in rem or in personam‑‑‑Question of limitation was, however, left open to be determined at the time of hearing of appeals. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi,
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.‑‑Office has raised objection that these petitions are time‑barred inasmuch as C.P.480 of 1995, C.P.499 of 1995 and C.P. 500 of 1995 by 421 days, C.P. 501 of 1995 by 841 days and C.P. 498 of 1995 by 358 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in these petitions petitioner is common and his grievance is that he was not joined as necessary party in the proceedings of service appeals which were filed by the respondents named therein and allowed by confirmation of seniority of DSPs in their favour with retrospective effect on account of acts of gallantry and extraordinary devotion to duty as envisaged in the circular of I.‑G. Police, dated 8‑6‑1973. It is further submitted that petitioner was due for promotion on 1‑7‑1980 but in C.P. 499 of 1995, respondent No.5 Zulfiqar Ahmad Malik has been given by Service Tribunal anti‑dated confirmation from 1‑7‑1984 to 16‑1‑1978 with the jump of six and half years with the result that seniority of the petitioner and his opportunity of promotion are seriously jeopardized.
2. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents supporting impugned decisions of the Service Tribunal has submitted that non‑joining of petitioner as a party before the Service Tribunal is not material for the reason that decision of Service Tribunal is judgment in personam and not judgment in rem hence is not binding on him and he can file departmental appeal when seniority list is published and if his grievance is not redressed then can file service appeal before the Service Tribunal. In this context Mr. Samdani, counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Notification dated 28‑5‑1995 (at page 75 of paper‑book of C.P.499 of 1995), in which it is mentioned specifically that seniority of DSP Zulfiqar Ahmad is settled in pursuance of the Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment dated 14‑3‑1995, hence departmental proceedings and availing remedy before the Service Tribunal would not serve any useful purpose. In the circumstances claim is reiterated that petitioner should have been joined in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal as necessary party.
3. We grant leave to examine firstly whether it was necessary to join the petitioner as necessary party in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal and secondly whether decisions of Service Tribunal impugned before us are judgments in rem or in personam. We leave open question of limitation to be determined at the time of hearing of appeals. A.A./M‑3285/S Leave granted.