1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GHULAM MURTAZA KHANZADA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Population Welfare, Islamabad and others
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J. and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, J |
| Parties | GHULAM MURTAZA KHANZADA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Population Welfare, Islamabad and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J. and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM MURTAZA KHANZADA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Population Welfare, Islamabad and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Munir A. Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehar Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th April, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
Population Welfare Planning Programme (Appointment and Termination of Service) Ordinance (XXI of 1981)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Seniority‑‑ Promotion‑‑‑Petitioner's grievance was that he was senior to certain persons but he was assigned lower position in seniority list‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether decision of Service Tribunal was in accordance with note appended to Office Order of specified date wherein petitioner's seniority was determined.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.‑‑‑Leave is sought to file appeal against the decision dated 7‑9‑1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby, the service appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Accountant/Cashier in BS-11 In the year 1967 in the Family Planning Board and later was promoted as District Accounts Officer in BS‑16 in the year 1973. In the year 1977, Provincial Family Planning Boards were abolished and the employees were absorbed in the Population Planning Division. The Petitioner was appointed in Grade‑14 with his consent. Later, the Population Welfare Planning Programme (Appointment and Termination of Service) Ordinance, 1981 was promulgated providing under section 3 appointment to be made in Population Programme under the Population Division of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission or, as the case may be, the Departmental Selection Committee. Under section 4 of the said Ordinance procedure for appointment in Garde‑16 or above is laid down enabling the appointing authority to refer the case of an employee in Garde‑16 or above to the Public Service Commission and in any other case to the Departmental Selection Committee. Section 3 also provided that employees in the Population Programme under the Population Division shall be deemed to be the civil servants within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
3. The Departmental Selection Committee appointed the petitioner in Grade‑11 on 11‑4‑1982 in consequence of adjustment or surplus staff in Grades 11 to
15. The petitioner was placed at Serial No. 6 in the list at the end of which there is note saying that the officers at Serial Nos. 1 to 10 have been adjusted in lower grade with protection of pay and seniority in promotion as and when vacancies arise in the higher grade. A vacancy occurred and in 1993 the petitioner was promoted to Grade‑
16. The seniority list has been published in which the petitioner has been shown at Serial No.
197. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is senior to Serial Nos. 163 to 188 on the basis of the note mentioned above. He filed representation, which was not responded to and then filed the service appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed.
4. Leave is granted to consider whether the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal is in accordance with the note appended to the Office Order dated 11‑4‑1982. A.A./G-563/S Leave granted.