PLC(CS) 2006

2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

DR. ROOHI SAEED Versus SHEIKH ZAYED HOSPITAL AND POST GRADUATE MEDICAL INSTITUTE

Jurisdiction / Court
Federal Service Tribunal
Decided Date
Appeal No.693(L)(C.E) of 2000, decided on 1st October, 2004.
Honorable Judges
Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Federal Service Tribunal
Bench Members Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members
Parties DR. ROOHI SAEED Versus SHEIKH ZAYED HOSPITAL AND POST GRADUATE MEDICAL INSTITUTE
Primary Law (a) Civil service, (d) Administration of justice, (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil service, (d) Administration of justice, (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (c) Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (DR. ROOHI SAEED Versus SHEIKH ZAYED HOSPITAL AND POST GRADUATE MEDICAL INSTITUTE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Civil service (d) Administration of justice (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) (c) Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993

Representation

  • Muhammad Hussain Awan for Appellant.
  • Imran Aziz Khan for Respondents Nos. 1, 3 & 4.
  • Sher Zaman for Respondent No.5.
  • Date of hearing: 1st October, 2004.

Headnotes / Summary

Appointment of current charge basis

Appointment on current charge basis was not a promotion

Civil servant who was appointed on a higher post on current charge basis would continue to be in his own grade till he was promoted on regular basis.

S. 4

Proviso (b)

Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S.8

Seniority

Appeal

Maintainability

Appellant in prayer clause of appeal had not prayed for promotion and her claim was that order by which respondent was declared senior to her be set aside being illegal

Appeal could be filed before Service Tribunal for such relief

Dispute being relating to seniority of appellant, Service Tribunal was the only forum wherein such question could be finally and conclusively decided

Appeal filed by appellant was maintainable.

R.4

Seniority on appointment by transfer

Seniority of civil servant in transferee department would be reckoned from the date of his transfer. 2003 SCMR 333 ref.

Every person, of whatever status he was and whatever religion/faith he professed, was duty bound to do justice to all

Government Departments particularly required to impart justice to their employees so that they could not enter into litigation and it was not the function of the Courts alone to administer justice

Timely decisions on merits by, respective Department, could definitely help in reducing litigation.

Judgment & Decree

(b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)

S. 4

Proviso (b)

Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S.8

Seniority

Appeal

Maintainability

Appellant in prayer clause of appeal had not prayed for promotion and her claim was that order by which respondent was declared senior to her be set aside being illegal

Appeal could be filed before Service Tribunal for such relief

Dispute being relating to seniority of appellant, Service Tribunal was the only forum wherein such question could be finally and conclusively decided

Appeal filed by appellant was maintainable. (c) Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993

R.4

Seniority on appointment by transfer

Seniority of civil servant in transferee department would be reckoned from the date of his transfer. 2003 SCMR 333 ref. (d) Administration of justice

Every person, of whatever status he was and whatever religion/faith he professed, was duty bound to do justice to all

Government Departments particularly required to impart justice to their employees so that they could not enter into litigation and it was not the function of the Courts alone to administer justice

Timely decisions on merits by, respective Department, could definitely help in reducing litigation. Muhammad Hussain Awan for Appellant. Imran Aziz Khan for Respondents Nos. 1, 3 &

4. Sher Zaman for Respondent No.5. Date of hearing: 1st October, 2004.