1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mrs. ZULEKHA ZAR Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Syed Ally Madad Shah, Chairman and Muhammad Ismail Khaskhely, Member |
| Parties | Mrs. ZULEKHA ZAR Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | (c) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (a) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, (b) Civil servant |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (a) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, (b) Civil servant as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Syed Ally Madad Shah, Chairman and Muhammad Ismail Khaskhely, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mrs. ZULEKHA ZAR Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
R.9
Seniority of civil servants inter se
Civil servant entered Grade 19, by way of promotion while rival civil servant's (not party in appeal) appointment was made through transfer; thus rival civil servant was already enjoying Grade 19, when she joined specific Division, whereas appellant having entered that Grade through promotion would rank junior to rival civil servant
Inter se seniority of both civil servants was given effect to on that consideration and that position was rightly maintained by Establishment Division all along-- Appellant would thus, rank junior to rival civil servant in circumstances.
Rival civil servant was promoted to Grade 20 in 1976
Civil servant did not lodge any protest until 1985, when she filed appeal, wherein it was held that her belated grievance could not be looked into against promotion of rival civil servant
Civil servant, thus, did not have a case of seniority to succeed.
S.4
Non-impleading of rival civil servant
Effect
There was legal impediment in the way of civil servant that she had not impleaded rival civil servant against whom she was claiming relief, as a party in appeal
Civil servant had thus, no case to contest seniority vis-a-vis rival civil servant who was not in the field. Appellant in person. Niaz Ahmad Khan Standing Counsel for the Government.
Judgment & Decree
R.9
Seniority of civil servants inter se
Civil servant entered Grade 19, by way of promotion while rival civil servant's (not party in appeal) appointment was made through transfer; thus rival civil servant was already enjoying Grade 19, when she joined specific Division, whereas appellant having entered that Grade through promotion would rank junior to rival civil servant
Inter se seniority of both civil servants was given effect to on that consideration and that position was rightly maintained by Establishment Division all along-- Appellant would thus, rank junior to rival civil servant in circumstances. (b) Civil servant
Rival civil servant was promoted to Grade 20 in 1976
Civil servant did not lodge any protest until 1985, when she filed appeal, wherein it was held that her belated grievance could not be looked into against promotion of rival civil servant
Civil servant, thus, did not have a case of seniority to succeed. (c) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)
S.4
Non-impleading of rival civil servant
Effect
There was legal impediment in the way of civil servant that she had not impleaded rival civil servant against whom she was claiming relief, as a party in appeal
Civil servant had thus, no case to contest seniority vis-a-vis rival civil servant who was not in the field. Appellant in person. Niaz Ahmad Khan Standing Counsel for the Government. Date of hearing: 31st May, 1992.