1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SADIO and 3 others Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF RAILWAY POLICE, LAHORE and 4 others
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim , Chairman and Muhammad Ismail, Member |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIO and 3 others Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF RAILWAY POLICE, LAHORE and 4 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim , Chairman and Muhammad Ismail, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SADIO and 3 others Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF RAILWAY POLICE, LAHORE and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hafiz Tariq Naseem for Appellants.
- Fida Hussain alongwith Khalid Farooq, PDSP for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1993.
- 6. Respondents 4 and 5 have also filed objections through their Advocate Mr. Masud Ahmed Riaz. It has been stated that the appeals .are not maintainable and are barred by time on two counts‑firstly that the induction of the respondents 3 to 5 was made in 1989 which the appellants did not challenge. They have questioned the genuineness of the so‑called representations dated 5‑9‑1989 as those were all fake and never submitted through proper channel, nor received in the office, therefore, the appeals are time‑barred. On merits, it has been stated that induction/absorption of the respondents 3 to 5 in the Investigating Wing was made under the valid orders of the competent Authority as provided by rules and there was no illegality in the orders. As such, their appointments were regular and under the rules, on transfer to Investigation Wing they were placed junior to the already working Inspectors in that Wing.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Pakistan Railways Police Act (VII of 1977)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Pakistan Railways Police Rules, 1980, Rr. 10 & 17‑‑‑Appointmeni and change of cadre from one wing to another‑‑‑One of the modes for appointment of a person holding regular appointment, to a particular wing was by way of transfer‑‑‑Where a transfer was made at one's own request, person concerned would have to be placed junior to existing members of staff working in that particular wing where he was transferred‑‑‑Change of cadre of co‑employees from Prosecution Wing to Investigating Wing, having been made with approval of competent Authority and in accord with provisions of relevant law, co‑employees were rightly placed junior to persons already working in same grade in that Wing‑‑‑Employees could not and should not have any grouse against appointment of co‑employees particularly when employees were Sub‑Inspectors while co‑employees were enjoying status of Inspectors at time of their change of cadre and their induction into Investigating Wing from Prosecution Wing. 1993 PLC (C.S.) 14; Zafar Mahmood, Ex‑Line Superintendent, WAPDA v. WAPDA 1991 SCMR 641 and S.M.H. Rizvi v. Maqsood Ahmed and others PLD 1981 SC 612 ref. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 4(1), proviso‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Competent Authority had discretion to determine fitness for promotion of employee and jurisdiction of Tribunal was barred in such matters. Respondent No. 3 in person. Masood Ahmed Riaz and Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Private Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
Judgment & Decree
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR‑GENERAL, PAKISTAN RAILWAY POLICE, LAHORE The request made by Prosecuting Inspector Ahmad Mukhtar Khan of Rawalpindi Division for change of category from P.I. (BS‑14) to that of IRP (BS‑14) (Investigation Wing) has been considered by the competent Authority and accepted. He will be adjusted in the next available vacancy of Inspector of Investigation Wing and will rank junior to all Inspectors already working in that Wing. ??????????????????????? (Sd.) A.I.‑G./Admn. ??????????????????????? For Inspector‑General, ??????????????????????? Pakistan Railway Police. No. A‑3/5‑PRP?????????? Dated21‑8‑1989. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR‑GENERAL, PAKISTAN RAILWAY POLICE, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHORE The request made by Prosecuting Inspector Ahmed Hussain Chohan of Multan Division for change of cadre from P.I. (B‑14) to that of Inspector (B‑14) (Executive Wing) has been considered by the competent Authority and accepted. Consequent upon change of cadre as Inspector, he is transferred from Multan and posted as Reserve Inspector in Railway Police Lines, Lahore temporarily till further orders against leave vacancy. He will rank junior to all Inspectors already working in Executive Wing. (Sd.) A.I.‑G./Admn. For Inspector‑General, Pakistan Railway Police. No. A‑3/5‑PRP?????????? ????????????????????????????? Dated 25‑7‑1990. Respondent No. 3: NOTICE In compliance with the directive of the Federal Minister for Railways, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, as contained in his Letter No. M. Karachi, dated 21‑8‑1989, the category of Mr. Shafi Muhammad Moghal is hereby changed from Prosecuting Inspector (B‑14) to that of Inspector (B‑14), Investigation Wing. He will be adjusted in the next available vacancy of Inspector of Investigation Wing and will rank junior to all Inspectors already working in that Wing. (Sd.) A.I.‑G./Admn. ?For Inspector‑General, Pakistan Railway Police. No. A‑2/5‑PRP ????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? Dated 24‑8‑1989. A bare reading of the above‑quoted orders clearly shows that change of cadres of the respondents 3 to 5 from Prosecution to Investigating Wing was made with the approval of the competent Authority and in accordance with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Pakistan Railway Police Act, 1977, read with Rules 10 and 17(4) of the Pakistan Railway Rules, 1980 and there is no illegality. They were rightly placed junior to the persons already working in the same grade in that Wing and we find no illegality in those orders and the appellants cannot and should not have any grouse against their appointments, particularly in the circumstances when the appellants were Sub‑Inspectors while the respondents 3 to 5 were enjoying the status of Inspectors at the time of their change of cadre and their induction into investigation Wing. It may also be pertinent to mention here that these orders were made in August, 1989 and July, 1990. Prior to this Mr. Maqbool Hussain Gilani was also inducted into Investigation Wing in the year 1987 but the appellants kept silent and did not agitate against his induction. In case the appellants really had any grievance against the respondents, they should have agitated the same at the appropriate time in accordance with law, instead of doing so in November, 1993. As such these belated appeals are hopelessly time‑barred in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Zafar Mahmood, Ex‑Line Superintendent, WAPDA v. WAPDA, reported in 1991 SCMR 641.
8. The appellants have also challenged the seniority list dated 13‑5‑1993 whereunder representations/objections against seniority have been called for and it is crystal clear that there is still more to be done for making it final after deciding the objections, if any. 1n these circumstances, these appeals are not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in PLD 1981 SC 612 (S.M.H. Rizvi v. Maqsood Ahmed and others).
9. The last relief sought by the appellants relates to their prayer for promotion to the rank of DSP. This claim also is not tenable as it is the discretion of the competent authority to determine the fitness for promotion of a civil servant and under proviso (b) to section 4(i) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is barred in such matters.
10. For the foregoing reasons, all the four appeals cannot succeed on merits as well as on legal points and are accordingly dismissed with costs.
11. Since the appeals have been dismissed, the stay order dated 19‑9‑1993 as against respondent No. 3 Mr. Shari Muhammad Mughal, is hereby vacated. H.B.T./894/Sr.F ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals dismissed.