1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Dr. Khawaja MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 3 others
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Azad J&K |
| Bench Members | Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan, Chairman and Kh. Abdul Hamid, Member |
| Parties | Dr. Khawaja MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Azad J&K bench comprising: Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan, Chairman and Kh. Abdul Hamid, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Dr. Khawaja MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Sher Muhammad Khan for Appellant.
- Sheikh Abdul Aziz for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servant was appointed as "Veterinary Officer" in Scale B‑17, whereas co‑civil servant ‑was appointed as "Planning Officer" in Scale B‑17 after about eight years from appointment of civil servant in the department‑‑‑When post of Planning Officer was upgraded as "Deputy Director" in Grade B‑18, co‑civil servant who was senior in that category, was promoted to that post‑‑‑Civil servant had challenged such promotion of co‑civil servant mainly on the ground of his seniority in service‑‑‑Post‑ of Planning Officer to which co‑civil servant was initially appointed fell under category of non‑technical Gazetted Officer B‑1.7 in Administration Branch, whereas civil servant who was appointed as Veterinary Officer belonged to category of Officers of Technical Branch‑‑‑Seniority list issued by Department for both categories were not common‑‑‑Name of civil servant in respective list of Veterinary Doctors of Technical Branch was entered at Serial No. 16, meaning thereby that as many as 15 officers of his department were senior to him whereas name of co‑civil servant in respective list of Planning Officers was at the top‑‑Civil servant, in circumstances, had no locus standi to challenge action in respect of matter relating to non‑technical Administrative Branch as promotion of co‑civil servant was in accordance with rules and civil servant who belonged to different category, was not an aggrieved person in that regard. Respondent No. 4 in person.
Judgment & Decree
AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR SERVICES AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT 'MUZAFFARABAD' Dated the 15th December, 1984. No. S&GAD/JS/1‑A/1138‑1238/84.‑‑‑In exercise of the powers conferred by section 23 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, the Government is pleased to direct that the process of upgradation of posts shall be regulated by the following Rules, namely:‑‑ (1)??????? These Rules may be called the Upgradation of Posts Rules, 1984. (2)??????? Upgradation of a post shall imply the abolition of the existing post and creation of any new post in the higher grade. (3)??????? Upgradation of a post shall not mean automatic upgradation of its incumbent. ??? (4)??????? Appointment to the upgraded post shall have to be made in the manner prescribed for that post. (5)??????? If a post is upgraded with immediate effect the incumbent shall be left without any post in his grade until he is approved for appointment to higher grade. Therefore, while sanctioning upgradation of the existing posts, it shall be clearly provided in the sanction letter that upgradation of the post would take effect from the date the post is filled by a person in the higher grade. Until the existing incumbent is formally appointed to higher grade the post and the incumbent would continue in lower grade. ??????????????????????? (Sd.) (Choudhry Muhammad Latif), ??????????? Joint Secretary Services. No. S&GAD/JS/1‑A/1138‑1238/84, dated the 15th December, 1984. Rules 2 and a in the present case are relevant. The upgradation of post under Rule 2 implies that the original post shall stand abolished and a new post in the higher grade shall be created. The Notification dated 17‑11‑1992 had the effect of abolition of the existing post in B‑
17. The incumbent of the existing post respondent No. 4 after this Notification was left without any post and some arrangement had to be made to accommodate him and continue in service. Rule 5 has been framed to meet this kind of situation. It has been provided in the rule that until the existing incumbent is formally appointed to higher grade the post and the incumbent would continue in lower grade. In the spirit of the rule the Government has approved the appointment of respondent No.4 in his own pay and scale. The appellant could only question the appointment of respondent against the upgraded post when he is formally appointed by the Government satisfying all the requirements of appointment under the Civil Servants Act and the Rules made thereunder. In absence of usual process of appointment by promotion the appellant has no cause to approach this Tribunal. Viewing the case from this angle it can be held that the appellant is not an aggrieved civil servant in terms of section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Ad, 1976: We are of the view that the impugned Notification has been issued strictly in compliance with the Notification under which the post was upgraded.
8. The seniority list appended with the appeal shows that the post of Planning Officer falls under the category of non‑Technical Gazetted Officer B‑17 Administration whereas the appellant belongs to category of Officers of Technical Branch. The seniority list of appellant and other Doctors was issued under No.3281‑97/hay noon/87, dated 9‑7‑1987 and the seniority list of respondent No.4 and other Officers belonging to Administrative Branch was issued under No.3300‑3352/87, dated 9‑7‑1987. The seniority list of appellant and respondent is not common. The appellant has, therefore, no locus standi to challenge the Government actions in respect of any matter, which relates to the non‑Technical Administration Branch. The name of the appellant in the seniority list of Veterinary Doctors of Technical Branch is entered at Serial No. 16 meaning thereby that as many as 15 Officers of his department are senior to him. In case this post is required to be flied up by any of the Officers of Technical Branch, the senior most Officer shall be considered for the appointment for this post if the rules permit to do so. The appellant has, therefore, no locus standi to file this appeal and invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
9. The end result is that this appeal is devoid of any force which is hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. H.B.T./251/SrA? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.