1989 PLP 607 (SCMR)
Malik GULZAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary to Government of Punjab and
| Citation | 1989 PLP 607 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Malik GULZAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary to Government of Punjab and |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 607 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 607 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 607 (SCMR) (Malik GULZAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary to Government of Punjab and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Tufail Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1988.
- Sardar Muhammad Tufail Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 26-12-1983 of the Punjab Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No.128/1601 of 1982).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)--Seniority--Leave to appeal was granted to consider that as the date of petitioner's induction into class I (Junior) was the same as that of respondents and he having longer service than respondents in class 11 , whether he should have been assigned a higher position in the seniority list.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑Seniority‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider that as the date of petitioner's induction into class I (Junior) was the same as that of respondents and he having longer service than respondents in class 11 , whether he should have been assigned a higher position in the seniority list. Sardar Muhammad Tufail Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 7th November, 1988. SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner wherein he had claimed seniority in the rank of Executive Engineer over respondents 2 to 116.
2. The petitioner joined the Irrigation Department as Overseer on 19‑10 1944. In 1951 he qualified as Associate Member of Institution of Engineering (A.M.I.E.). On 3‑6‑1960 he was promoted as Sub‑Divisional Officer.
3. By a notification issued on 22‑7‑1971, the Government of the Punjab granted class‑1 status to the graduate Engineers serving in the irrigation department who were initially appointed as Assistant Engineers or Assistant Design Engineers. Consequent upon the issuance of this notification a large number of respondents were inducted into class‑1 service. Subsequently, the Government recognized the qualification of A.M.I.E. as equivalent to a degree in Engineering. As a result the petitioner was also granted the status of class‑I (junior) with effect from 22‑7‑1971. Prior to the petitioner's induction into class‑1, respondents Nos.2 to 116 were promoted as Executive engineers. On 7‑7‑1977 the petitioner was also promoted to that grade. The petitioner claimed seniority over respondents Nos.2 to 166 on the ground that he had longer service as Sub Divisional Officer than the latter but his claim was rejected both by the department and the Service Tribunal. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. In support of this petition it is inter alia contended that as the date of his induction into class‑I (junior) was the same as that of respondents Nos.2 to 116 and he had longer service than the said respondents in class‑II, he should have been assigned a higher position in the seniority list. This contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing, on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any, and listed at an early date. AA./G‑156/S Leave to appeal granted.