1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ANJUM SHAFI, PHARMACIST, PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, ISLAMABAD Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | ANJUM SHAFI, PHARMACIST, PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, ISLAMABAD Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ANJUM SHAFI, PHARMACIST, PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, ISLAMABAD Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M, Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate.-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. l to 3.
- Fazal Ilahi Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Zahidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 11th March, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-8-1995 of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No. 106-R of 1993).
S. 5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Seniority inter se-- Petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist on regular .basis on 9-3-1987, whereas respondent was appointed in same capacity on contract basis on 24-3-1986
Respondent was, however, subsequently appointed on regular basis by order dated 27-2-1989 but his appointment was given effect to from 24-3-1986 i.e. date of his appointment on contract Basis, therefore, he became senior to petitioner
Service Tribunal although found that under Civil Servants Act, 1973, appointment on contract basis could hardly be converted into regular appointment, yet it did not find any just and valid ground to disturb position taken in regularising services of respondent with retrospective effect
Petitioner maintained that question was that of his right and that must turn upon powers of Competent Authority under Civil Servants Act, 1973 to treat respondent as an employee on regular basis with effect from 24-3-1986 when admittedly he was appointed on contract basis and he had continued on contract basis till 27-2-1989
Leave to appeal was granted to consider contention raised by petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL KARIM, J.
The question requiring determination in this case relates to the seniority of the petitioner, Anjum Shafi, vis-a-vis the 4th respondent herein, named Abdul Qadir Javed Iqbal. The petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist on regular basis on 9-3-1987 whereas the 4th respondent was appointed in the same capacity on contract basis on 24-3-1986. By an order dated 27-2-1989 the 4th respondent was also appointed on regular basis but his appointment was given effect to from 24-3-1986 that is, the date of his appointment on contract basis. This is however the 4th respondent has become senior to the petitioner, The Tribunal has traced the history of the employees of PIMS; it posed a question "whether a contractual appointment could be regularised retrospectively and whether there is any provision in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 for doing so and observed: "No doubt, under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, appointment contract could hardly be converted into regular appointment" The Tribunal, however, found that there were distinguishing features in the present case namely that the 4th respondent and other employees of PIMS similarly situated had continued on contract basis "right from 1986 .. who were regularised from date of their contractual appointments in 1981 and in all fairness, his such service was to be regularised". In the view of the Tribunal "the regularisation of services of respondent No.4 alongwith, Medical officers was not a solitary case but was made on the recommendations of the Board of Governors" and "in case we allow the appeal, it will mean that we are making discrimination and interfering to the discretion exercised by the competent Authority". The Tribunal found "no just and valid ground to disturb the position taken in regularising the services of respondent No.4 when at that time they were not civil servants nor specific rules were made or were enforced under the Civil Servants Act, 1973".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that the question is that of the petitioner's right and that must turn upon the powers of the competent Authority under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 to treat the 4th respondent 'as an employee of the PIMS on regular basis with effect from 24-3-1986, when admittedly he was appointed on contract basis and he had continued on contract basis till 27-2-1989.
3. Leave to appeal is granted inter alia to consider this contention. A.A./A-52/S Leave granted.