2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
WAPDA and others Versus Qari MUHAMMAD FEROZE and others
| Citation | 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Shakirullah Jan, Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan and Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, JJ |
| Parties | WAPDA and others Versus Qari MUHAMMAD FEROZE and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Shakirullah Jan, Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan and Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (WAPDA and others Versus Qari MUHAMMAD FEROZE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art. 212(3)---Seniority list, preparation of---Pendency of lis before Supreme Court---Effect---Petitioner department and other departments and authorities, particularly in service matter when lis was pending in the court relating to terms and conditions of service, where rights of parties regarding seniority were under consideration and were still to be determined by the court with a resultant consequence of effecting further promotion and other rights like Selection Grade, the department should keep its hands off unless there was specific order of the court for further proceeding on the part of department/authority, in order to avoid further complications and which ought to have been visualized by the department---Petitioner department had, without visualizing such complications, had shown smartness by deciding the matter hurriedly without waiting for decision of court and if any difficulty had then arisen, it was for petitioner department to solve or to suffer for that---Service Tribunal had rightly passed judgment in favour of respondents and declined to interfere---Leave to appeal was refused.
- Sheikh Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all cases).
- M. Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court along with Tanveer Ahmed in person (pro forma respondent) for Respondent No.1 (in all cases).
- Date of hearing: 27th October, 2008.
- 4. Since the selection grade which had already been granted to other employees of the petitioner/Department was on the basis of separate seniority list of the two power stations which were under challenge since the very inception in the year 1993 well in time and which challenge of the respondent employees was accepted and which resulted in the combined seniority list dated 10-3-2001 in pursuance of the Court order and if the matter was delayed it was because of prolonged litigation in the Courts. The petitioner/Department and other departments and authority, particularly in a service matter when the lis is pending in the Court relating to the terms and conditions of service, like the instant one, where the rights of the parties regarding seniority is under consideration and was still to be determined by the Court with a resultant consequence of effecting further promotion and other rights like the selection grade, the department should keep its hands off, unless there is specific order of the Court for further proceeding on the part of the department/authority, in order to avoid further complications and which ought to have been visualized by the department. In the present case it is the department which without visualizing such complications has shown its smartness by deciding the matter hurriedly without waiting for the decision of the Court and if any difficulty now arises at this stage it is for the department to solve or to suffer for that. The Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment has very rightly and aptly observed that " Seniority is an invaluable term and condition of service and cannot be interfered with without a valid and just cause. Circulation of the Final Combined Seniority List on the directions of the apex Court was not a perfunctory ritual without consequential benefits. Rights which have accrued as a result of the Combined Seniority List cannot be denied to the appellants. The appellants are entitled to all the service benefits including selection grade and promotion on the basis of seniority so determined."
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment, dated 26-6-2008 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeals Nos.26 to 29(P)(C.E.) of 2004).
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.
The respondents, employees of the petitioner, WAPDA, are litigating for a long time since 1993 for their seniority on the plea that their seniority be determined on the basis of combined seniority list after the establishment of Tarbela Power Station No.2 consisting of Units Nos.11 to 14 in addition to the already existing Tarbela Power Station No.1 consisting of Units Nos.1 to
10. After several rounds of litigation, even up to this Court, the contesting respondents who are respondent No.1 in each case succeeded in getting an order from the Court with regard to the preparation of combined seniority list which was prepared and circulated on 10-3-2001. After the preparation of the new combined seniority list they again approached the Department for grant of Selection Grade as some of the employees who are junior to the said respondents had already been given Selection Grade but the petitioner/WAPDA did not agree to their said demand which ultimately gave rise to another round of litigation which resulted in the form of impugned judgment whereby they were held entitled to the grant of Selection Grade.
2. The petitioner, the WAPDA, being aggrieved of the said relief granted to the respondents approached this Court through instant petitions.
3. There is no controversy rather the parties are in agreement on final combined seniority list circulated on 10-3-2001, however, the petitioner's grievance about the impugned judgment is that the said respondents are not entitled to selection grade and the same had already been given to the employees on the basis of separate seniority list then in vogue at that time and on the ground that selection grade can be granted only to 33% of the total strength and which had already been granted and the Department is not in a position to give it to other employees over and above 33%.
4. Since the selection grade which had already been granted to other employees of the petitioner/Department was on the basis of separate seniority list of the two power stations which were under challenge since the very inception in the year 1993 well in time and which challenge of the respondent employees was accepted and which resulted in the combined seniority list dated 10-3-2001 in pursuance of the Court order and if the matter was delayed it was because of prolonged litigation in the Courts. The petitioner/Department and other departments and authority, particularly in a service matter when the lis is pending in the Court relating to the terms and conditions of service, like the instant one, where the rights of the parties regarding seniority is under consideration and was still to be determined by the Court with a resultant consequence of effecting further promotion and other rights like the selection grade, the department should keep its hands off, unless there is specific order of the Court for further proceeding on the part of the department/authority, in order to avoid further complications and which ought to have been visualized by the department. In the present case it is the department which without visualizing such complications has shown its smartness by deciding the matter hurriedly without waiting for the decision of the Court and if any difficulty now arises at this stage it is for the department to solve or to suffer for that. The Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment has very rightly and aptly observed that " Seniority is an invaluable term and condition of service and cannot be interfered with without a valid and just cause. Circulation of the Final Combined Seniority List on the directions of the apex Court was not a perfunctory ritual without consequential benefits. Rights which have accrued as a result of the Combined Seniority List cannot be denied to the appellants. The appellants are entitled to all the service benefits including selection grade and promotion on the basis of seniority so determined."
5. We see no good reason to justify interference in the well-reasoned judgment of the Service Tribunal and resultantly we decline leave to appeal and these petitions are dismissed. M.H./W-2/SC Petitions dismissed.