1994 PLP 543 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMID KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 543 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 543 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 543 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 543 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMID KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1993
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 16‑5‑1993, in Appeal No. 36‑R of 1993). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Civil servant had not challenged seniority list issued on 15‑6‑1980, wherein respondent was shown senior to him‑‑‑Civil servant's explanation that he was not aware of that seniority list and that same was not served upon him not being plausible leave to appeal was refused. Petitioner in person. Respondent in person
Judgment & Decree
MANZOQR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑Abdul Hamid Khan, petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal, against judgment dated 22‑4‑1993, of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") whereby his appeal against order dated 9‑5‑1992, placing Mr. Shaheen Iqbal respondent No.4, senior to him by the departmental authority, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner claims that he was selected/appointed as A.W.M. (Auxiliary) as trainee on 18‑7‑1974, and his service was regularised on 8‑9‑1976, he ranked senior to respondent No.4 who was appointed as Assistant Manager (PR) on 19‑8‑1976, because the post of A.W.M. (P.R.) was not equivalent to the post of A.W.M. (Auxiliary) held by him.
3. The perusal of the impugned order, however, shows that this point stood already resolved on 23‑5‑1990, in Appeal No.72(R)/1989, filed by respondent No.4 against the petitioner and others before the Tribunal, wherein it was held that Assistant Works Manager (Auxiliary) included Assistant Manager (P.R.) in the cadre and the seniority of respondent No.4 to be reckoned from the date of his appointment as Assistant Manager (P.R.) viz 19‑8‑1976 and not on 14‑7‑1981, the date when he was transferred to the anxillary cadre. This decision was maintained by this Court in Appeal No.1495 of 1990 on 23‑9‑1992.
4. The petitioner appears to have not challenged seniority list issued by the department on 15‑6‑1980, wherein Shaheen Iqbal, respondent was shown senior to him with his date of appointment as 19‑8‑1976, and date of the appointment of the petitioner as 8‑9‑1976. On a question, as to why that seniority list was not challenged by him, the petitioner stated that he was not aware of that seniority list, as it was not served upon him. This explanation at this stage, hardly sounds plausible.
5. In our view, this is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal. In consequence, this petition fails and is dismissed. AA./A‑1083/S Petition dismissed.