1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ALI, PROJECT ASSISTANT Versus DIRECTOR, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and another
| Citation | 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Aslam, Member‑I |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI, PROJECT ASSISTANT Versus DIRECTOR, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and another |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIM of 1974)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIM of 1974)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Aslam, Member‑I.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ALI, PROJECT ASSISTANT Versus DIRECTOR, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aaqa Syed Asif Jaafri for Appellant.
- Haider Ali Khawaja, District Attorney for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st February, 1998.
- Syed Abbas Raza, District Attorney for Respondents.
- 3. Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate submitted a miscellaneous application on behalf of Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Chughtai, Superintending Engineer, Local Government and Rural Development Department. He was allowed to make submissions at .the preliminary stage, although the appellant has not impleaded him as a party in the instant appeal. Mr. M.A. Riaz has contended that Mr. Chughtai is an officer of the Local Government and Rural Development Department, is a regular Superintending Engineer as he has been regularly promoted as such by the competent Authority in the prescribed manner, and therefore, has got exclusive claim on the solitary post of Superintending Engineer in the department instead of any outsider deputationist. He further submitted that this Tribunal has already adjudicated upon the appointment of Mr. Chughtai vide judgment dated 10‑11‑1996 in Appeal No. 484 of 1995, and therefore, any order in favour of‑the appellant in the instant appeal would be contrary to the said judgment. He, therefore, pleaded that a situation of conflict of opinion may be avoided.
- 4. The case was argued at length. It was noticed that the department had only 3 options in this case namely (i) to post the appellant against any equivalent post in the department. (ii) to re‑post him as Superintending Engineer. (iii) to repatriate appellant to the parent department. There being no other equivalent post in the department, option No. (i) is precluded. As for option No. (ii) it is not possible to resort to it in view of this Tribunal's judgment referred to above. Option No. (iii) is not available in view of the stay order granted by the Lahore High Court on the petition of the appellant himself. This has created a situation of stale‑mate for the department; the only course left with them is to repatriate him to the parent department but this course has been blocked by the appellant himself by obtaining a stay order from the Hon'ble Lahore High Court.
- 6. Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate strongly argued that any order purporting to install any person other than Mr. Chughtai as Superintending Engineer would require review of the judgment of this Tribunal referred to above, which this Tribunal is not competent to do.
- 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was not a party in the judgment of this Tribunal dated 10‑11‑1996 in Appeal No.484 of 1996 referred to above, and therefore, the said judgment could not be enforced against him. It was pointed out by Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate that the appellant was not impleaded as party in the said judgment because he was not holding the post of Superintending Engineer at the time of institution of Appeal No.484 of 1995 and that the appellant was posted as Superintending Engineer by bringing him on deputation during the pendency of the said appeal which was itself mala fide; and in any case, non‑pleading of the appellant in the case of judgment referred to above could not be challenged before this Tribunal, and in case the appellant has to agitate against the said judgment, he should move the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned District Attorney also agreed that the proper course for the appellant is to seek repatriation by withdrawing the petition from the Lahore High Court unless he could be adjusted against any other post in the Local Government and Rural Development Department on deputation, which is not possible, there being no other equivalent post in the department. The learned District Attorney, therefore, observed that the appeal is not maintainable for the reasons discussed above.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 7‑‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, R. 8‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Determination‑‑Civil servant who originally was appointed as Assistant (BS‑11), subsequently, on his own request was appointed as Project Assistant (BS‑11) on ad hoc basis and, thereafter, he was regularised as Project Assistant‑‑Seniority of civil servant was determined from the date he was confirmed as Project Assistant, was disputed by him contending that his seniority should have been determined from the date of his original appointment as Assistant, because no distinction could be made between his assignment as Assistant and then as Project Assistant for purpose of counting his seniority as no material substantial change was brought out in nature of his assignment when he was shifted from post of Assistant to that of Project Assistant‑‑Validity ‑‑‑Contention of civil servant was repelled because posts of Assistants and Project Assistants which carried different assignments could not be amalgamated for drawing combined seniority lists of two different cadres‑‑‑Appointment of civil servant as Project Assistant being a fresh appointment to that post, his seniority in cadre of Project Assistant would be reckoned from date when he was appointed to that post and not from the date of his original appointment as Assistant. 1974 PLC (C.S.T.) Note 11 at p. 7 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ASLAM (MEMBER‑I).‑‑‑The appellant as Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineer, was deputed to the Local Government and Rural Development Department and posted as Superintending Engineer, Local Government and Rural Development on 12‑10‑1995 vice Mian Muhammad Yousaf, relieving the latter of the additional charge of the post of Superintending Engineer. On 20‑11‑1996, he was repatriated by the Local Government and Rural Development Department to his parent department with immediate effect. He went to the Lahore High Court against this order of repatriation. The Lahore High Court suspended the impugned order on 24‑11‑1996. Meanwhile, respondent No.2 passed another order on 16‑12‑1996 transferring him and directing him to report to the Local Government and Rural Development Department for further orders. He again moved the Lahore High Court against the order dated 16‑12‑1996. The writ petition was ultimately withdrawn. After this, he filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal against the order dated 16‑12‑1996.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that his repatriation to parent department should have been ordered according to rules and policy and that the order dated 16‑12‑1996 has no force as there is no other equivalent post in the Local Government and Rural Development Department where the appellant can be posted and that the said order dated 16‑12‑1996 was passed with mala fide intention.
3. Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate submitted a miscellaneous application on behalf of Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Chughtai, Superintending Engineer, Local Government and Rural Development Department. He was allowed to make submissions at .the preliminary stage, although the appellant has not impleaded him as a party in the instant appeal. Mr. M.A. Riaz has contended that Mr. Chughtai is an officer of the Local Government and Rural Development Department, is a regular Superintending Engineer as he has been regularly promoted as such by the competent Authority in the prescribed manner, and therefore, has got exclusive claim on the solitary post of Superintending Engineer in the department instead of any outsider deputationist. He further submitted that this Tribunal has already adjudicated upon the appointment of Mr. Chughtai vide judgment dated 10‑11‑1996 in Appeal No. 484 of 1995, and therefore, any order in favour of‑the appellant in the instant appeal would be contrary to the said judgment. He, therefore, pleaded that a situation of conflict of opinion may be avoided.
4. The case was argued at length. It was noticed that the department had only 3 options in this case namely (i) to post the appellant against any equivalent post in the department. (ii) to re‑post him as Superintending Engineer. (iii) to repatriate appellant to the parent department. There being no other equivalent post in the department, option No. (i) is precluded. As for option No. (ii) it is not possible to resort to it in view of this Tribunal's judgment referred to above. Option No. (iii) is not available in view of the stay order granted by the Lahore High Court on the petition of the appellant himself. This has created a situation of stale‑mate for the department; the only course left with them is to repatriate him to the parent department but this course has been blocked by the appellant himself by obtaining a stay order from the Hon'ble Lahore High Court.
6. Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate strongly argued that any order purporting to install any person other than Mr. Chughtai as Superintending Engineer would require review of the judgment of this Tribunal referred to above, which this Tribunal is not competent to do.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was not a party in the judgment of this Tribunal dated 10‑11‑1996 in Appeal No.484 of 1996 referred to above, and therefore, the said judgment could not be enforced against him. It was pointed out by Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate that the appellant was not impleaded as party in the said judgment because he was not holding the post of Superintending Engineer at the time of institution of Appeal No.484 of 1995 and that the appellant was posted as Superintending Engineer by bringing him on deputation during the pendency of the said appeal which was itself mala fide; and in any case, non‑pleading of the appellant in the case of judgment referred to above could not be challenged before this Tribunal, and in case the appellant has to agitate against the said judgment, he should move the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned District Attorney also agreed that the proper course for the appellant is to seek repatriation by withdrawing the petition from the Lahore High Court unless he could be adjusted against any other post in the Local Government and Rural Development Department on deputation, which is not possible, there being no other equivalent post in the department. The learned District Attorney, therefore, observed that the appeal is not maintainable for the reasons discussed above.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant intended to further study the case‑law to show that he could make further submissions whether he could seek a remedy from this Tribunal as he felt aggrieved of the judgment of this Tribunal dated 10‑11‑1996 referred to above.
9. Arguments were heard. We do not think that it would serve the end of justice to prolong the arguments in this case.
10. The appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./538/Sr.P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.