PLC(CS) 1992

1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AIJAZ AHMED KHAN and others Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 37 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal Sindh
Decided Date
Appeals Nos. 79 to 84 of 1989, decided on 12th September, 1991.
Honorable Judges
Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and Ghulam Mujaddid Isran, Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal Sindh
Bench Members Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and Ghulam Mujaddid Isran, Member
Parties AIJAZ AHMED KHAN and others Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 37 others
Primary Law (b) Sindh Civil Servants Act (XV of 1973), (a) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Sindh Civil Servants Act (XV of 1973), (a) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Munawar Ali Khan, Chairman and Ghulam Mujaddid Isran, Member.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AIJAZ AHMED KHAN and others Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 37 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Sindh Civil Servants Act (XV of 1973) (a) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)

Representation

  • Manzoor Ali Khan for Appellants.
  • A.Q. Halipota and Shabbir Ahmed for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 12th September, 1991.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 4

Appeal

Maintainability of

Appeal could be filed against departmental order, original or appealable, whereby a civil servant was aggrieved

Communication of that order had nothing to do with maintainability of appeal but was relevant only for computation of period of limitation, which was to be calculated from date on which order was communicated.

Ss. 2 & 8

Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, Rr. 8 & 10

Ad hoc promotion

Civil servants were promoted on ad hoc basis, but no action was taken by departmental Authorities for regularisation of their promotion, consequently, their promotion continued to remain as ad hoc promotions

Ad hoc promotion, could not be treated as regular promotion on basis of any document other than order or notification of formal regularisation-- -Grant of higher scale to such promotees, could also not be held to have regularised their ad hoc promotions

Inclusion of names of such promotees in seniority list was absolutely illegal

Such inclusion would be construed as not merely raising a dispute of seniority between parties, but would also amount to perpetration of illegality. Muhammad Saleh v. Muhammad Shafi 1982 SCMR 33; Ghulam Sarwar v. Province of Punjab 1982 SCMR 46; Mian Mohammad Afzal v. Government of Punjab 1982 SCMR 408; Saifuddin v. Government of Punjab 1982 SCMR 877 and Muhammad Ibrahim v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1965 SC 1 ref. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi for Government.

Judgment & Decree

S. 4

Appeal

Maintainability of

Appeal could be filed against departmental order, original or appealable, whereby a civil servant was aggrieved

Communication of that order had nothing to do with maintainability of appeal but was relevant only for computation of period of limitation, which was to be calculated from date on which order was communicated. (b) Sindh Civil Servants Act (XV of 1973)

Ss. 2 & 8

Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, Rr. 8 & 10

Ad hoc promotion

Civil servants were promoted on ad hoc basis, but no action was taken by departmental Authorities for regularisation of their promotion, consequently, their promotion continued to remain as ad hoc promotions

Ad hoc promotion, could not be treated as regular promotion on basis of any document other than order or notification of formal regularisation-- -Grant of higher scale to such promotees, could also not be held to have regularised their ad hoc promotions

Inclusion of names of such promotees in seniority list was absolutely illegal

Such inclusion would be construed as not merely raising a dispute of seniority between parties, but would also amount to perpetration of illegality. Muhammad Saleh v. Muhammad Shafi 1982 SCMR 33; Ghulam Sarwar v. Province of Punjab 1982 SCMR 46; Mian Mohammad Afzal v. Government of Punjab 1982 SCMR 408; Saifuddin v. Government of Punjab 1982 SCMR 877 and Muhammad Ibrahim v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1965 SC 1 ref. Manzoor Ali Khan for Appellants. A.Q. Halipota and Shabbir Ahmed for Respondents. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi for Government. Date of hearing: 12th September, 1991.