1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))
Ch. MASOOD AHMAD Versus EXCISE & TAXATION DEPARTMENT
| Citation | 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | 1976 P L C C. S. T. 27 |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbar, |
| Parties | Ch. MASOOD AHMAD Versus EXCISE & TAXATION DEPARTMENT |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Service Rules, 1966‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Service Rules, 1966‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the 1976 P L C C. S. T. 27 bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbar,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) (Ch. MASOOD AHMAD Versus EXCISE & TAXATION DEPARTMENT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Ahmad Masood for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Merger of posts Sub‑Inspector (Opium) and sub‑Inspector (Excise) Not retrospective‑Appellant Sub‑Inspector (Opium), declared surplus and service terminated in klatch 1966‑Appointed as fresh recruit as Sub‑Inspector (Excise) in May 1966‑Mergsr on promulgation of Rules coming into force in November 1966‑Claim for higher position in seniority on basis of service as Sub‑Inspector (Opium), to circumstances, held, not sustainable‑Appellant held, could not claim seniority over those Sub‑Inspectors (Excise) who were already working on Excise side when appellant appointed thereto as fresh recruit.
Judgment & Decree
Case No. 234 of 1974, decided on 25th September 1974. ‑‑ Merger of posts Sub‑Inspector (Opium) and sub‑Inspector (Excise) Not retrospective‑Appellant Sub‑Inspector (Opium), declared surplus and service terminated in klatch 1966‑Appointed as fresh recruit as Sub‑Inspector (Excise) in May 1966‑Mergsr on promulgation of Rules coming into force in November 1966‑Claim for higher position in seniority on basis of service as Sub‑Inspector (Opium), to circumstances, held, not sustainable‑Appellant held, could not claim seniority over those Sub‑Inspectors (Excise) who were already working on Excise side when appellant appointed thereto as fresh recruit. Mushtaq Ahmad Masood for Appellant. The appellant initially appointed as S. I. (Opium). Some time in 1966 he was declared surplus and his services were terminated w.e.f. 8‑3‑
66. He was allowed one day's leave and thus was made to relinquish charge on 7‑3‑
66. On 5‑5‑66 he was appointed as S. I. (Excise). It was an entirely new appoint ment as the letter of appointment issued to him indicates. Thus, his seniority amongst the S. I's. (Excise) has to be counted from the date when be was offered this new appointment. This is exactly what the administration department has done.
2. In support of this appeal, the appellant has relied upon the West Pakistan Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Service Rules which came into force in November 1966. Under these Rules the posts of S. I's. (Excise) amongst others were included in one service namely, the West Pakistan Excise & Taxation Department Subordinate Service. It is contended that on account of the merger brought about by the said Rules the appellant is entitled to count his seniority from the date when he joined as S. I. (Opium). We do not think so. At the time when the services of the appellant were terminated, the S. I's (Excise) and S. I's. (Opium) belonged to entirely two different services. The merge took place long after the appellant had been declared surplus as S. I. (Opium) and his services had been terminated. Consequently, he cannot claim that he should be assigned an higher position in the seniority list over those S. I's who were already working on the Excise side when the appellant was appointed thereto as a fresh recruit. We find nothing in the Rules which may suggest that the merger was to take effect retrospectively. For the reasons stated above this appeal is without any merit and is here by dismissed in limine.