1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SAEED ASHRAF Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF NADEEM and 11 others
| Citation | 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAEED ASHRAF Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF NADEEM and 11 others |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 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 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SAEED ASHRAF Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF NADEEM and 11 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st February 1995.
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 5th June, 1994 passed in Appeal No. 18(R)/94).
Ss. 8 & 12(a)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Seniority-- Respondent had challenged gradation list circulated on 29-11-1993 in appeal before Service Tribunal whereby his seniority was restored and corrected and he was placed above petitioner in gradation list
Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether respondent's appeal before Service Tribunal was barred by time for having not challenged earlier gradation list of 1975 which was revised in 1981; whether respondent was promoted on basis of such seniority and gradation list published in 1987 which too, was not challenged; and whether on his failure to clear Federal Public Service Commission or by the precedent under S. 12(a), Civil Servants Act, 1973 and having failed in his lateral Entry Examination, his appointment as Deputy Secretary was not regularised, therefore, he could not have claimed seniority over those who had been regularised earlier within meaning of S. 8(4), Civil Servants Act, 1973. Service Appeals Nos. 39(R) of 1992 and 301(R) of 1985 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st February 1995. FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑These two petitions have been filed against one and the same judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 5‑6‑1994 in Appeal No. 18 (R) of 1994,
2. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Deputy Secretary by way of Lateral Entry with effect from 17‑7‑1974. His name appeared at Serial No.162 in (BPS‑18) and Mir Bakhsh Zafar an officer above to him at Serial No. 161 and Anwar Ahmed was shown junior to him at serial No.
163. His services were terminated on 26‑12‑1977 but ultimately his termination order was set aside by the Tribunal on 12‑6‑1982 and he was re‑instated on 23‑6‑1982. He was promoted to BPS‑20 from the date his junior was promoted i.e. 19‑5‑1983 vide Notification dated 19‑5‑1983.
3. A gradation list of Secretariat Group Officers was circulated by Establishment Division vide letter dated 13‑12‑1987 in which the respondent No.l appeared at serial No.219 among the BPS‑20 officers. He made representation on 21‑2‑1988 for restoration of his correct position as was in the lower grade. His position was corrected and as such was placed above Mr. Nazir Ahmad whose name appeared in the gradation list at Serial No.
135. He then basing reliance on the judgment in Service Appeals Nos. 39(R) of 1982 and 301 (R) of 1985 and the judgment in Roshan Ali Mangi case, to whom seniority had been restored and corrected, challenged the gradation list circulated on 29‑11‑1993, which was allowed by the judgment. Leave to Appeal is prayed for by Saeed Ashraf (Petitioner in C.P. 381/94) and Secretary, Establishment Division (Petitioner in C.P. 415/94).
4. It is, inter alia, alleged that the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by time as the gradation list of 1975 was revised in the year 1981 against which respondent No. 1 did not file any representation when he was re‑instated with all back benefits. That the respondent was promoted on the basis of such seniority and gradation list published in the year 1987 which too was not challenged. That on his failure to clear Federal Public Service Commission or by the precedent under section 12(a) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and he having failed in his lateral Entry Examination his appointment as Deputy Secretary was not regularised, therefore, he could not have claimed seniority over these who had been regularised earlier within the meaning of section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act. We grant leave to appeal to consider the above contentions. AA./S‑971/S Leave granted.