Home Maxims & Terms Determination of seniority meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Determination of seniority

Determination of seniority legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2015 PLD 360 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Ss. 5 & 8Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Service Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 10High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Chap. 10, Part A, R.1Subordinate/District judiciary (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)AppointmentDetermination of seniorityStatutory responsibilityAdministration Committee of the (Peshawar) High CourtChief Justice of the (Peshawar) High Court

Appointment of members of District Judiciary and determination of their seniority was a statutory responsibility, which was to be exercised by the Administration Committee of the High Court

Chief Justice of the High Court in such context could not do anything on his own

Any decision taken by the Administration Committee of the High Court (in the matter of appointment of members of District Judiciary and determination of their seniority) shall be binding on the Chief Justice of the High Court.

2015 PLC(CS) 283 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Arts. 4, 25 & 199Constitutional petitionCivil serviceDetermination of seniorityDiscriminationEstoppelApplicabilityPublic functionariesDuty of

Petitioner was appointed as Prosecuting Sub-Inspector and subsequently his cadre was changed from prosecution side to executive side along with other colleagues

Grievance of the petitioner was that after absorption of the Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors, seniority to others was allowed from the date of their initial appointment but the petitioner had been discriminated by awarding him seniority from the date of his absorption

Validity

Under Arts.25 & 4 of the Constitution, equal protection of law to all the citizens and equal treatment to the citizens similarly placed had been guaranteed

All the statutory functionaries in a democratic set-up were bound to act in public matters justly, fairly and in accordance with rules and instructions on the subject and individual distinction for extraneous reasons was not permissible

`Equality before law' meant that like should be treated alike and it forbade discrimination between person, who were substantially in similar circumstances or conditions, however, it did not forbid different treatment of unequals and classification could be made between two groups which were substantially not placed in similar circumstances or conditions

Petitioner was subjected to hostile discrimination forbidden by Art.25 of the Constitution

High Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner equally and on the same line as other officers had been treated and assigned seniority to the petitioner from the date of his substantive appointment in the rank of Prosecuting Sub-Inspector with all service benefits

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Determination of seniority", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124953070

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Determination of seniority"

SCMR 1985
Civil Petition No.228-R of 1984, decided on 22nd October, 1984.

1985 S C M R 174

Ch. UMAR DIN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents

Court: ---Art.212--Determination of seniority of civil servant--Leave to appeal--Appeal of petitioner before Service Tribunal dismissed as time- barred as same had not been filed within period of limitation from making representation--Contention that period of limitation be counted from letter of the Department which was neither a final order nor appeal able --Tribunal, held, justified in dismissing appeal as time-barred in circumstances and no case of interference by Supreme Court was made out--Since a final determination of seniority of petitioner was yet to be made by department, petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to press for such determination notwithstanding view taken by Tribunal- Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.--Civil service.
PLC 1993
Appeals Nos. JG‑6 to 11 of 1986, decided on 14th January, 1986.

1993 P L C 928

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 5 others Versus CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHANG

Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab
PLC(CS) 1996
Civil Appeal No. 253 of 1992, decided on 25th June, 1995.

1996 P L C (C

MUHAMMAD ZAFAR KHAN Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 155 others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLC(CS) 1993
Appeals Nos. 51, 52 and 53 (K) of 1990, decided on 8th August, 1992.

1993 P L C (C

M. TAHIR RASHID and 2 others Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 82 others

Court: Federal Service Tribunal
SCMR 1995
Civil Appeal No. 253 of 1992, decided on 25th June, 1995.

1995 S C M R 1840

MUHAMMAD ZAFAR KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLC(CS) 2018
Civil Appeal No.245 of 2017 decided on 29th January, 2018.

2018 P L C (C

SHOUKAT ALI MUGHAL, Versus SECRETARY SERVICES AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT MUZAFFARABAD and 14 others

Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)
PLC(CS) 1993
Appeals Nos. 51, 52 and 53(K) of 1990, decided on 8th August, 1992.

1993 P L C (C

M. TAHIR RASHEED and 2 others Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and others

Court: Federal Service Tribunal
PLC(CS) 1995
Service Appeal No. 593 of 1992, decided on 19th February, 1995.

1995 P L C (C

Raja MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KAYANI Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 4 others

Court: Service Tribunal AJ&K
PLC(CS) 1991
Appeal No.23‑K of 1983, decided on 5th June, 1989.

1991 P L C (C

Dr. ATTA MUHAMMAD MANGI Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH,

Court: Federal Service Tribunal
PLC(CS) 1990
Appeal No. 101(R) of 1988, decided on 31st October, 1989.

1990 P L C (C

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ ASGHAR Versus PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN and 12 others

Court: Federal Service Tribunal