2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)
NIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LADY READING HOSPITAL, PESHAWAR and 5 others
| Citation | 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court |
| Bench Members | Nisar Hussain Khan and Muhammad Younis Thaheem, JJ |
| Parties | NIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LADY READING HOSPITAL, PESHAWAR and 5 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Nisar Hussain Khan and Muhammad Younis Thaheem, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) (NIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LADY READING HOSPITAL, PESHAWAR and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ibadur Rehman for Petitioner.
- Shakeel Ahmad for Respondents.
- 5. The main contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that, petitioner is serving as ward orderly since 1987 and according to seniority list (Annexure-E), he was eligible and fit for promotion being at S.No.4, but despite the fact persons junior to him have been promoted, which act of the respondents is illegal, against the law, discriminatory, without lawful authority, so be set at naught.
Headnotes / Summary
Promotion made in violation of seniority list
Back benefits, allowance of
Petitioner, Ward Orderly of the Hospital, claimed that as per the seniority list prepared for the Class-IV, the respondents had been promoted to the posts of Junior Clerks, while ignoring the seniority of the petitioner
Petitioner, despite being at Serial No. 4 in the Seniority list and fit, had not been promoted; while the respondents, who were junior to him in seniority, had been promoted to higher scale
Department Selection and Promotion Committee of the Hospital had failed to adhere to the seniority list and promoted the Class-IV employees illegally without observing the law/policy and seniority order for promotion
High Court declaring the promotion as null and void set aside the same and directed the authorities to reconstitute the Selection and Promotion Committee for approval of promotion strictly in accordance with the seniority list; and held the petitioner to be entitled to back benefits
Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances. [Paras. 5 & 6 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.
Niaz Muhammad, the petitioner, seeks constitutional jurisdiction of this Court praying:-- "On acceptance of petition, respondents Nos.1 and 2 be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk and promote the petitioner from the date when his juniors were promoted with all back benefits.
2. In essence grievance of petitioner is that he is serving as Ward Orderly in Lady reading Hospital, Peshawar since 1987; that for promotion of class-IV, a seniority list was prepared wherein the petitioner was reflected at S.No.4, but without observing seniority list the respondents Nos.3 to 6 were promoted to the post of Junior Clerk, while the petitioner was ignored from promotion without any lawful reason. The petitioner approached the respondents personally and through written requests for his promotion, but in vain, hence, the instant writ petition.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 submitted their comments, wherein they admitted his service since 13.06.1987.
4. Arguments heard and available record perused.
5. The main contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that, petitioner is serving as ward orderly since 1987 and according to seniority list (Annexure-E), he was eligible and fit for promotion being at S.No.4, but despite the fact persons junior to him have been promoted, which act of the respondents is illegal, against the law, discriminatory, without lawful authority, so be set at naught. 5A. The respondents have neither disputed the sonority list in their comments nor during the course of arguments, rather relied upon the seniority list placed on file as Annexure-E, wherein the petitioner has been shown at S.No.4. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 have promoted Mr. Salahuddin, Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Shafiq from the post of Ward orderly to the post of Junior Clerk vide order No.1206-12 dated 17.05.2013, who as per seniority list are at S. Nos. 1, 2 and 5 respectively. The respondents have also promoted Mr. Johar Shah and Mr. Shamsher Khan Ward Orderlies, to the posts of Store Keeper, vide order dated 29.05.2013, who are at S. Nos.6 and 7 respectively. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 have also promoted one Mst. Miraj Bibi Ward Aya to the post of Junior Clerk, vide order No.15535-39 dated 17.05.2013. It is very much astonishing to note that according to seniority list, the petitioner was at S.No.4 and despite being fit, has not been promoted, while the respondents Nos.3 to 6, junior to him in seniority had been promoted to higher scale. It is held that the Departmental Selection and Promotion Committee of Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar has failed to adhere the seniority list and had promoted the Class-IV, employees illegally, without observing law/ policy and seniority order for promotion.
6. For the reasons discussed above, the instant Writ Petition is allowed, decisions taken by the Departmental Selection and Promotion Committee of Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar in meetings held on 4th and 17th May of 2013, regarding promotion of Class-IV, employees and promotion orders made in consequence thereof are declared null and void and are set aside. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 and other over helms of affairs are directed to reconstitute the Selection and Promotion Committee afresh, who shall made approval for promotion strictly in accordance with the seniority list. The promotion would be deemed w.e.f. 17.05.2013 and petitioner will be entitled for back benefits also from the said date. It is further directed that the judgment of this Court be implemented within one month according to law. SL/117/P Petition allowed.