1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ILYAS HAIDER ZAIDI ADVOCATE Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and 3 others
| Citation | 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | ILYAS HAIDER ZAIDI ADVOCATE Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ILYAS HAIDER ZAIDI ADVOCATE Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th November 1993.
- ILYAS HAIDER ZAIDI ADVOCATE
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 1‑3‑1992 passed in Appeal No. 279(L) of 1991). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Civil servant had received due place in revised seniority list in accordance with decision of Supreme Court in earlier litigation on 12‑8‑1990‑‑‑Civil servant retired from service in 1990, but he still wanted that on the basis of seniority so revised in 1990, his promotion which took place on 20‑10‑1986 should be revised and ante‑dated to give effect to his seniority which under the earlier judgment of Supreme Court started from 4‑8‑1960 and not from 1‑7‑1973 on the basis of which he was in fact promoted‑‑‑Supreme Court had pointed out in earlier petition (for leave to appeal) that its decision could not be given retrospective effect nor seniority list and its revision alone were sufficient for ante‑dating promotion, for claiming retrospective promotion for which a procedure through Selection Board had to be gone into and no vested right for promotion from a particular date was made out unless it was embedded in some specific rule‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Muhammad Umar Malik and others v. Federal Service Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 172 ref. Petitioner in Person.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 1‑3‑1992 'under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
2. The petitioner had a dispute over seniority in BPS‑
16. That question of seniority was determined finally by this Court on 22‑12‑1986 vide decision in Muhammad Umar Malik and others v. Federal Service Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC
172. That decision with regard to seniority was given effect to by the Auditor‑General of Pakistan by publishing a revised seniority list in accordance with decision of this Court on 12‑8‑1990. The petitioner has received due place in it. He retired from service in 1990. He still wanted that on the basis of seniority so revised in 1990 his promotion to BPS‑16 which took place on 20‑10‑1986 should be revised and ante‑dated to give effect to his seniority which under the judgment of the Supreme Court started from 4‑8?1960 and not from 1‑7‑1973 on the basis of which he was in fact promoted.
3. It has already been pointed out to the petitioner in his earlier petition (Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 943 of 1989 decided on 1‑7‑1990) that the decision of the Supreme Court could not be given retrospective effect nor seniority list and its revision alone were sufficient for ante‑dating promotion, for claiming retrospective promotion `for which' a procedure through the Selection Board has to be gone into and no vested right "for promotion" from a particular date is made out unless it be "embedded" in some specific rule.
4. No case is made out for our interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. AA./I‑186/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Leave refused.