1995SCMR1229 (PLP)
Islamabad and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BA. TABASSUM and 11 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR1229 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | Islamabad and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BA. TABASSUM and 11 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR1229 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR1229 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR1229 (PLP) (Islamabad and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BA. TABASSUM and 11 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 252 of 1994).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No. 252 of 1994):
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No. 317 of 1994).
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑‑Seniority list‑‑‑Assignment of seniority to civil servant in earlier list not challenged by any of civil servants shown junior to him therein‑‑ Authority after lapse of about three years revising such list and assigning seniority to one of those civil servants who was shown junior to civil servant‑‑‑ Service Tribunal on appeal by civil servant restored him to earlier position which had been assigned to him in previous list against which no one had agitated for three years‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Service Tribunal rightly reached the conclusion that seniority assigned to civil servant in earlier list could not be revised after so many years especially in absence of representation against the same‑‑‑No exception could thus be taken against decision of Service Tribunal restoring seniority to civil servant as was assigned to him in earlier list‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Petitioner in person (in C.P. No. 317 of 1994).
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J: ‑‑Civil Petition No. 252 of 1994 has been filed on behalf of the Federal Government through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad to call in question the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 13‑2‑1994 whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the service appeal of respondent No.l (BA. Tabassum) and restored his seniority as determined in the final seniority list issued by the Department in 1990. Respondent No.l (BA. Tabassum) was assigned seniority at Serial No.5 in the seniority list which was issued by the Department in the year 1990. The learned Service Tribunal came to the conclusion that the seniority list issued by the Department was a final list against which no representation was made by any officer who were shown junior to respondent No.l. However, the said list was revised by the Department at its own in 1993 and in the comments filed before the learned Tribunal the Department took up the position that while determining the seniority of respondent No.l in the list of PBS‑19 Officers a mistake was committed whereby seniority of another officer of that grade namely, Mukhtar Ahmed Zahid, was overlooked. It was also mentioned in the comments that there was some irregularity in the promotion of respondent No.l from Grade‑16 to Grade‑17 and from Grades‑17 to 18, which was not noticed at the time of assigning seniority at Serial No.5 of the list issued in 1990. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out from the record before us any representation made by any of the officers shown junior to respondent No.l in the gradation list of 1990 against assignment of seniority to respondent No.1 at Serial No.5 of the said list. The learned Tribunal therefore, rightly reached the conclusion that in the absence of representation against the assignment of seniority to respondent No.l in the seniority list of 1990, the seniority of respondent No.l could not be revised by the petitioners after lapse of about 3 years. We may also mention here that Muhammad Afzal Safvi who was one of the respondents before the Service Tribunal has also filed Civil Petition No.317 of 1994, challenging the order of Tribunal, mentioned above and has supported the petition filed by the Government. He also contends that the assignment of seniority to respondent No.l in the gradation list of 1990 was wrong as he was senior to respondent No.l while he was shown junior to him. However, when we enquired from Mr. Afzal whether he filed any representation against the seniority list issued by the petitioners in 1990, he admitted that he preferred no representation against the seniority list issued in 1990 in which he was shown junior to respondent No.l. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Service Tribunal. The petitions are without any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. AA./F‑340/S Leave refused.