1990 PLP 1421 (SCMR)
ALI AHMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE POST‑MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN PUNJAB AND AJK,
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1421 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | ALI AHMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE POST‑MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN PUNJAB AND AJK, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1421 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1421 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1421 (SCMR) (ALI AHMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE POST‑MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN PUNJAB AND AJK,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 27‑3‑1989 passed in Appeal No. 118(8) of 1988). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Seniority in same cadre‑‑‑Mode of determination‑‑‑Respondent was senior to petitioner in the lower grade and they were promoted to the selection grade on the same date‑‑‑Respondent was discharging duties on some other post, from which he was not relieved and when he was relieved, many years had passed‑‑‑Question of seniority between petitioner and respondent was settled by the Department by keeping the respondent senior to petitioner‑‑‑Petitioner's appeal before Service Tribunal was rejected‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Respondent had not kept away from his new assignment out of his own choice but was not relieved from the post which he was holding at that time‑‑‑Amends were due to respondent for that reason alone‑‑‑In keeping the selection due, till such time as respondent was not relieved for taking up the appointment, competent authority had in fact recognized the right to which respondent was legally entitled‑‑‑No question of law having arisen in the case, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, a civil servant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 27th of March, 1989, whereby an appeal filed by him against the seniority assigned to respondent No. 2 was dismissed.
2. The respondent No. 2 was senior to the petitioner in the lower grade and they were promoted to the selection grade on the same date. The respondent No.2 was discharging duties on some other post from which he was not relieved to take up the appointment and when he was relieved, many years had passed. The question arose as to what should be the seniority assigned to respondent No.2 after he was allowed to go back to the post in. selection grade. The petitioner represented that he should not be brought back at all nor given seniority over him. The department did not accede to his request and kept the respondent No.2 senior. The petitioner brought the matter before the Service Tribunal which recorded the following finding:‑‑ " .... he was not relieved to join the cadre of LSG in BPS‑
9. When he became available he was posted to L.SG cadre. The respondent No. 2 was deprived of his emplacement in the cadre of LSG for no fault of his. The appellant in these circumstances cannot challenge his reposting to the LSG cadre retrospectively with effect from the date he had originally been promoted to that cadre. The removal of the name of the respondent No. 2 from the LSG cadre was rectified subsequently during the pendency of this appeal by order dated 14‑1‑1989."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the name of the respondent No. 2 had been struck off, from the selection grade list, he could not be brought back and even if brought back, he could not be given the benefit of earlier selection when years had passed to it.
4. It is not denied that it was not out of choice that the respondent had stayed out. He was not relieved. For that reason alone amends were due. In keeping the selection due till such time as he was not relieved for taking up the appointment, the competent authority has in fact recognized the right to which the respondent No. 2 was legally entitled. No question of law arises in the case and leave to appeal is refused. AA./A‑710/S Leave refused.