1991 PLP 472 (SCMR)
S.A. KURESHY — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 472 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | S.A. KURESHY — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 472 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 472 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 472 (SCMR) (S.A. KURESHY — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.M.A. Samdani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st January, 1990.
- K.M.A. Samdani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 12-11-1988 in Appeal No. 6(R) of 1985).
Art.212(3)
Entitlement to arrears of pay from the date when junior was promoted to higher post while civil servant was ignored
Civil servant was, however, subsequently promoted
Civil servant's departmental appeal as also his service appeal failed
Civil servant's contention was that Service Tribunal had totally ignored the fact that respondent had granted to civil servant all increments for the entire period intervening the date of his promotion and his junior and allowed him seniority over his junior
Vested right had thus been created in favour of civil servant who in fact had been virtually granted pro forma promotion which entitled him to the benefits of arrears of pay and allowances as if he had worked on a higher post and that it was not due to the fault of civil servant that he was not appointed to a higher post
Further contention was that in a similar case, another civil servant was granted all the consequential benefits by the Service Tribunal
Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contentions raised by civil servant. Muhammad Athar v. Pakistan PLD 1962 SC 367; Muhammad Ashraf v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1973 Lah. 42 and Mazhar Hussain v. Govt. of West Pakistan PLD 1973 Lah. 56 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner and two other officers, namely, Abdul Jalil Khan and Malik Muhammad Siddique of Military Lands and Cantonments Group in Grade 18 were selected on 24‑3‑1977 as Joint Secretaries in the Federal Secretariat Group in Grade
20. The selection was approved by the competent authority on 5‑7‑1977. Abdul Jalil Khan being the senior most was appointed to officiate as Joint Secretary on 4‑7‑1977 but the notification was later cancelled and he was posted in Grade 20 on 12‑9‑1977. Malik Muhammad Siddique who was junior to the petitioner was appointed Joint Secretary on 5‑7‑1977. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was senior to Malik Muhammad Siddique but he was not promoted to the post of Joint Secretary or to any other equivalent post till 26‑1‑1980 when he was appointed to officiate as Joint Secretary in Grade
20. The petitioner requested the respondent for the payment of arrears of pay and allowances with effect from 14‑7‑1970 the date when Malik Muhammad Siddique junior to the petitioner had been appointed as Joint Secretary. The respondent informed the petitioner that ..his pay will be fixed after taking into account the period between the date of appointment of Malik Muhammad Siddique and his own taking over of charge towards increment" and further that " ....that he will get his seniority with reference to the date of appointment of his immediate junior Malik Muhammad Siddiq ....."
2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal for getting the relief. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner could claim arrears of pay only if he had worked against the post of Joint Secretary during the period from 14‑7‑1977 to 28‑1‑1980. Alternatively, the respondent could have created a new job for the petitioner for the period in question so that he could be shown working against a Grade 20 post. The petitioner being aggrieved has challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal.
3. It has been contended that t e Tribunal has totally ignored the fact that the respondent had granted the petitioner all increments for the entire period intervening the date of promotion of the petitioner and his junior and allowed him seniority over his junior. Therefore a vested right had been created in favour of the petitioner who in fact had been virtually granted pro forma promotion which entitled him to the benefit of arrears of pay and allowances, as if he had worked on a higher post as it was not due to the fault of the petitioner that he was not appointed to a higher post. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Athar v. Pakistan (PLD 1962 SC 367), Muhammad Ashraf v. Prov of West Pakistan (PLD 1973 Lah. 42) and Mazhar Hussain v. Govt. of West Pakistan (PLD 1973 Lah. 56).
4. It has been further contended that in a similar case of M.S. Bhatti v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Mr. Bhatti was granted all the consequential benefits by the Service Tribunal. The point raised by the learned counsel needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. A.A./S‑545/5 Leave granted.