1989SCMR70 (PLP)
ABDUL GHAFFAR and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR70 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal, Usman Ali Shah and Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFFAR and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil service, (b) West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR70 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil service, (b) West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR70 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal, 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: 1989SCMR70 (PLP) (ABDUL GHAFFAR and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in all appeals)
- S.A.M. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1988.
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants (in all appeals)
- S.A.M. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal front the judgment and order dated 12-4-1980 passed by the Service Tribunal, Baluchistan, Quetta, in Appeals Nos. 7/78, 8/78, 12/78 and 14 of 1978).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Civil servant--Fixation of seniority without cancellation of previous orders--Leave to appeal granted to consider whether, without cancellation of previous orders relating to original seniority, consequential orders fixing their seniority could be interfered with.
R. 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Fixation of seniority- Service Tribunal failing to consider effect of orders of Authority and also whether there was any material to show compliance with R. 8 of Tehsildari and Naib Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962, before any claim to seniority could be entertained or contested to the context of orders restoring seniority of appellants--Such questions being elemental for deciding appeals, order of Tribunal affecting seniority of appellants was set aside and cases were remanded for decision afresh in accordance with guidelines proposed by Supreme Court. .
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑In these appeals the question for consideration was the fixation of seniority of appellants Rahim Shah and Abdul Ghaffar from 21‑3‑1973 and 30‑5‑1973 on which dates they had completed their training upon their selection as Tehsildars. However, by an order dated 30th of May, 1973, they were reverted to the posts of Naib‑Tehsildars against which they made representations but did not succeed as those were not accepted. Their review petitions succeeded and their original selection as Tehsildars was upheld. In the meantime they had also been promoted as Tehsildars. The dispute, however, arose when they applied for fixation of their seniority and the Board of Revenue by orders dated 26‑1‑1978 and 25‑3‑1978 restored their original seniority as from the date when they had completed their training. Respondents who were affected moved the Tribunal and succeeded. Leave was granted to consider whether without the cancellation of orders dated 10th of January, 1975 and 30th of January, 1976, the consequential orders fixing their seniority could be interfered with. Upon hearing the learned counsel and examining the record we are of the view that the Tribunal had failed to consider the effect of the orders of the Governor, and also as to whether there was any material to show compliance with rule 8 of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib‑Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962, before any claim to seniority could be entertained or contested in the context of B the above orders restoring the seniority. These questions are elemental for deciding the appeals. Accordingly, we would set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the cases to it for deciding them afresh in accordance with the above guidelines. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./A‑358/S Cases remanded.