PLC(CS) 1998

1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD TAJRIAN Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 3 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 159 of 1996, decided on 19th June, 1996.
Honorable Judges
Salem Akhtar and Zia Mahmood Mirza, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Salem Akhtar and Zia Mahmood Mirza, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD TAJRIAN Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 3 others
Primary Law Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
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: Salem Akhtar and Zia Mahmood Mirza, 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)) (MUHAMMAD TAJRIAN Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)

Representation

  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 19th June, 1996

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 16-1-1996 in Appeal No.416(R)/95).

S. 8

Constitution of Pakistan {1973),."Art. 212(3)

Fresh appointment

Seniority

Civil servant and respondent both had applied and were selected by Departmental Promotion Committee

Fresh appointment: letter was issued with terms and conditions contained therein

Civil servant had not been able to show any document in support of his contention that his appointment in Department was by way of transfer and not by way of fresh appointment

Merit list prepared by- Department wherein respondent was declared to have got better position than civil servant was legal and justified

Finding of Service Tribunal to that effect, being unexceptionable, leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Petitioner in person

Judgment & Decree

SALEEM AKHTAR, J

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal by which his appeal was dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts .are that the petitioner was serving as Office Superintendent (BPS-14) in the Department of Weights and Measures. It seems that this department was` to be abolished on 31-3-1978. However, a circular was issued by F.I.A. for recruitment for the post of Office Superintendent for which the petitioner and respondent No. 4, who was his colleague, applied. Both were selected. The petitioner joined F.I.A. on 22-4-1978 as Superintendent in BPS-14 while Wazir Khan joined on 19-4-1978. From the record it seems that the Departmental Promotion Committee, which had interviewed the petitioner and respondent No.4 selected 18 candidates for appointment as Office Superintendent. In order of merit the petitioner was at serial No. 11 while respondent No.4 was at serial No.5. In the seniority list Wazir Khan respondent No.4 was shown senior to the petitioner, who filed departmental appeal on 3-8-1995 requesting that his date of appointment as Office Superintendent in F.I.A. may be reckoned from 4-2-1975 and he may be treated senior to respondent No.4. As no reply was received, the petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal with the same prayer. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed their objections pleading that the petitioner was appointed in response to the circular insured by the F.I.A. and taking into consideration the merits determined by the Selection Board, respondent No 4 has been given seniority from the date of their regular appointment in F.I.A. It was further stated that respondent No.4 had joined service earlier than the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment holding that the determination of seniority by the department was legal and justified.

3. The petitioner has contended that his seniority should be reckoned from the date when he had joined the department of Weights and Measures and not from the date of appointment in F.I.A. He claimed that his service continued from the day he was appointed in the Weights and Measures Department and as being senior there, should be declared senior to respondent No.4 in F.I.A. as well. The Tribunal after examining the record was of the opinion that the post held by the petitioner in the Department of Weights and Measures was of a temporary nature and the petitioner was a fresh entrant in the F.I.A. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 both had applied and were selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee. A fresh appointment letter was issued with terms and conditions contained therein. The petitioner has not been able to show any document to support his contention that his appointment in F.I.A. was by way of transfer and not by way of fresh appointment. In these circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is unexceptionable and cannot be interfered. Leave is refused. A.A./M-59/S Leave refused.