1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SAADULLAH KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. and 3 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal N. W.F.P. |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Panvez Khan, Chairman and |
| Parties | SAADULLAH KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. and 3 others |
| Primary Law | North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal N. W.F.P. bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Panvez Khan, Chairman and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SAADULLAH KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Asif Shah for Appellant.
- Muhammad Latif Khan, Special Government Pleader for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Abdus Samad Khan for Respondent No. 4.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 4--Appeal against respondents' promotion on basis of wrong seniority- Appellant after joining service improved his qualification earlier than respondents--On promotion of respondents to Grade-17, earlier than his own promotion to same grade, appellant did not object to such promotion--Which, however, respondents were promoted to Grade-18, appellant challenged their promotion--Due to appellant's failure to challenge promotion of respondents to Grade 17 earlier than his own seniority in that grade and after such lapse of time, appellant, held, could not claim that he was senior to the respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Latif Khan, Special Government Pleader for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Abdus Samad Khan for Respondent No.
4. MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant, Saadullah Khan, preferred this appeal against the impugned Notification dated 17-G-1987 vide which respondents 3 and 4 were promoted to Grade-18 on the basis of wrong seniority. According to him he joined the department as a Sub-Engineer on 19-2- 1963 and later on improved his qualification by obtaining the degree in Engineering in the year 1970. Respondents on the other hand did qualify the said examination but after him. However, they were promoted earlier to the higher grade and his representation being dismissed by the department, he has approached this Tribunal to seek his relief. Claim of the appellant was vehemently resisted by the respondents, who submitted separate written statements inter alia on the ground that the appeal is incompetent, that it is barred by time and that the appellant has got no locus standi. Further, they alleged that appellant did not challenge the seniority list published in the year 1980 and also raised no objection on the promotion of the respondents 3 and 4 on 22-12-1973 and 28-10-1975. Arguments heard and File perused. There is no denying the fact that appellant did improve his qualification earlier than respondents 3 and
4. However, this is an admitted fact that respondent No. 3 was promoted to Grade-17 on 22-12-1973 and respondent No. 4 A on 28-10-1975 while the appellant was promoted to Grade-17 on 28-11-1978. When the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted to Grade-18, the appellant challenged the same. Prior to this he kept quiet while the respondents we promoted to Grade-17. It was the appropriate time for him to seek his relief. 1 did not avail this remedy at the right time with the result that the appellant seniority in Grade-17 was affected and now the appellant cannot claim that he was senior than the said two respondents. The present appeal being with merits is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room. AA./97/Sr. N Appeal dismissed.