Seniority

Petitioner was employee of a State-owned company and aggrieved of fixing of his seniority by Board of Directors in their meeting held in the year 2014

Petitioner pleaded violation of some provisions of State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023

Validity

Provision of State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023, received assent of the President on 30-01-2023 and came into force at once

When an Act of Parliament provided that it would come into force at once, then every provision of it became enforceable from the day the Act had received assent of the President unless any provision of Act provided otherwise

Claim of applicability of State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023 to the decision taken by Board of Directors on 16-06-2014 or retrospective effect of the Act, even otherwise, was negated by S.36 of the Act

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / civil servants assailed notification of promotion of respondents issued by Selection Board during pendency of appeals fixing seniority before Service Tribunal

Respondents claim promotion to the post (BS-18), which was a non-selection post

Validity

In principle promotion to such post was required to be made on seniority-cum-fitness basis

It was yet to be determined by Service Tribunal as to who was senior amongst the parties and fit for promotion in the next rank

Meeting convened by Selection Board recommending promotion of respondents should not have been called for on account of the pendency of seniority dispute between the parties before Service Tribunal

Recommendation made by Selection Board in its meeting was an erroneous decision on their part

High Court set aside notification of promotion of respondents as purported recommendation made by Selection Board for promotion of respondents was without justification

High Court directed that promotion of all parties would be subject to the outcome of service appeals filed by parties and those who were not a party could join service appeals by appropriate application before Service Tribunal

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Final seniority list of Inspectors will be reckoned from the date of confirmation of the officers and not from the date of appointment.

Scope and applicability of the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) Act, 1994 [as amended by the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) (Amendment) Act, 2014]

Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) (Amendment) Act, 2014 (the 2014 Act) sought to give an advantage to the appellants with retrospective effect at the expense of the vested rights of the respondents

Unlike the appellants the respondents entered into the service of Pakistan in terms of Article 240(2) of the Constitution by being selected by Provincial Public Service Commission ('the Commission')

While the appellants came through the proverbial back door and were saved by the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) Act, 1994 ('the 1994 Act')

Having secured their employment by the 1994 Act, an unjustified, illegal and unconstitutional benefit was sought to be extended to the appellants through the impugned notifications and the 2014 Act

Incidentally, the reasons to enact the 2014 Act were neither given therein nor provided by the appellants

Article 25(1) of the Constitution proscribed discrimination and Article 27(1) of the Constitution prohibited discrimination in the service of Pakistan

By way of the impugned judgment the Tribunal had rightly concluded that the amendment brought by 2014 Act used for taking away the constitutional rights of respondents after twenty years could not be recognized as constitutionally legal and valid; that the deeming clause brought twenty years after the promulgation of the 1994 Act was, on the face of it, against the object and scheme of the original 1994 Act itself, and that the purpose of the original 1994 Act was only to validate and regularize the ad hoc appointment of the employees from the date of its promulgation whereas the subsequent deeming clause went much beyond the scheme of the original Act, therefore, it had to be accepted to the extent which it was in conformity with the original 1994 Act

Appeals were dismissed with costs.

Final seniority list of Inspectors will be reckoned from the date of confirmation of the officers and not from the date of appointment.

Scope and applicability of the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) Act, 1994 [as amended by the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) (Amendment) Act, 2014]

Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) (Amendment) Act, 2014 (the 2014 Act) sought to give an advantage to the appellants with retrospective effect at the expense of the vested rights of the respondents

Unlike the appellants the respondents entered into the service of Pakistan in terms of Article 240(2) of the Constitution by being selected by Provincial Public Service Commission ('the Commission')

While the appellants came through the proverbial back door and were saved by the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) Act, 1994 ('the 1994 Act')

Having secured their employment by the 1994 Act, an unjustified, illegal and unconstitutional benefit was sought to be extended to the appellants through the impugned notifications and the 2014 Act

Incidentally, the reasons to enact the 2014 Act were neither given therein nor provided by the appellants

Article 25(1) of the Constitution proscribed discrimination and Article 27(1) of the Constitution prohibited discrimination in the service of Pakistan

By way of the impugned judgment the Tribunal had rightly concluded that the amendment brought by 2014 Act used for taking away the constitutional rights of respondents after twenty years could not be recognized as constitutionally legal and valid; that the deeming clause brought twenty years after the promulgation of the 1994 Act was, on the face of it, against the object and scheme of the original 1994 Act itself, and that the purpose of the original 1994 Act was only to validate and regularize the ad hoc appointment of the employees from the date of its promulgation whereas the subsequent deeming clause went much beyond the scheme of the original Act, therefore, it had to be accepted to the extent which it was in conformity with the original 1994 Act

Appeals were dismissed with costs.

Petitioners assailed exclusion of Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) of prosecution branch from the Joint Seniority List

Contention of department was that there was no specific provision in the Balochistan Deputy Superintendents of Police Service Rules, 1978, for maintaining Joint Seniority List of DSPs (General Cadre) and DSPs of the prosecution branch

Validity

Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors of the Prosecution Branch of Police Department could not travel horizontally by transfer to the other branches of the Police Department but after promotion of the Inspectors of the prosecution branch of the Police Department as DSPs, there was no such restriction on the DSPs of prosecution branch

DSPs of the prosecution branch could be appointed in other branches of the Service

Rule 10 of the Balochistan Deputy Superintendents of Police Service Rules, 1978, dealing with the inter se seniority of the DSPs of the Service, did not provide for preparation of separate Seniority List of DSPs of different branches of the service

Rule 2(b) of Balochistan Deputy Superintendents of Police Service Rules, 1978, although provided that all the branches of the service had been organized as separate and self-contained unit of the Police Department but all the branches (including the prosecution branch) of the service had not been sanctioned as a separate unit to fall within the definition of a "separate cadre" warranting preparation of separate seniority lists of the DSPs of different branches of the service under S.8(1) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974

Constitutional petitions were accepted and the department was directed to issue joint seniority list of DSPs.

Seniority in the grade to which a civil servant is promoted is to take effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in the grade

Services rendered by the employees on ad-hoc basis prior to their regularization cannot be counted for the purpose of their seniority but their seniority will be counted from their substantive/regular appointments

Ad-hoc employees cannot claim precedence in seniority over the regularly appointed employees; their status will be reckoned with their batch mates and after regularization their seniority will be fixed accordingly.

Seniority with retrospective effect cannot be conferred unless such right was established.

Held, that Federal Government had the power, under R. 12 of the Federal Investigation Agency (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975, to add to or modify the six groups with the FIA, but it had not exercised such power to make the Immigration wing into a distinct group, and one separate from the Investigation group

Throughout, a combined seniority list of the Investigation group was issued, and when such practice was departed with for a while it was restored by the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal was endorsed by the Supreme Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Prior to commencement of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 ('the 2009 Act'), the Provincial Public Services Commission ('the Commission') recommended employees in batches owing to their large number

Some batches were recommended for appointment prior to commencement of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 ('the 2009 Act'), while others after its commencement

Employees from batches recommended by the Commission, after the commencement of the 2009 Act, would also get the benefit of section 4 of the 2009 Act

In such circumstances, other employees whose services were regularized pursuant to the 2009 Act, shall rank junior to those candidates, whose recommendations were made by the Commission, prior to the commencement date of the 2009 Act.

Seniority in the grade to which a civil servant is promoted is to take effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in the grade

Services rendered by the employees on ad-hoc basis prior to their regularization cannot be counted for the purpose of their seniority but their seniority will be counted from their substantive/regular appointments

Ad-hoc employees cannot claim precedence in seniority over the regularly appointed employees; their status will be reckoned with their batch mates and after regularization their seniority will be fixed accordingly.

Seniority with retrospective effect cannot be conferred unless such right was established.

Civil Servants Act, 1973, provides different categories, service cadres or posts as prescribed by the recruitment rules of the department and the very concept of cadre provides a safeguard within the service hierarchy so that one kind of officer cannot cross the cadre, disturb the seniority, other rights of the officers in different cadres.

Where civil servants were selected for promotion in a "batch'" or as a "group of persons" then the date of promotion of all the persons in the batch or the group shall be the date when anyone of them was first promoted to the post and they shall retain their inter se seniority

Word "batch" used in S. 7 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 ('the Act') had been interchangeably used as "group of persons" in R. 8 of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974

Promotees in the same grade, when considered and recommended for promotion for the next grade in the same Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) passed for a "batch" or "group of persons" and therefore as would be considered to have been promoted from the date when the first amongst the batch was promoted and would also retain their inter se seniority of the lower post.

Direct appointees/respondents were appointed through initial appointment on 3-12-2003, a day after the promotion of the first promotees out of the batch of promotees; hence the direct appointees would fall under the promotees in the seniority list

Appeals were allowed.

Seniority could only be determined when civil servants were commissioned into regular service.

Civil Judges-cum-Magistrates appointed on contract basis regularized in service after appearing in competitive examination

Inter-se seniority of such judges was to be reckoned from the date of their regularization in service and not from their initial appointment on contract basis

Regularization of service through deeming provision of S. 19(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973 was confined to pensionary benefits alone and could not be stretched to affect the seniority inter-se of persons who were already members of the judicial service.

Seniority could only be determined when civil servants were commissioned into regular service.

Civil Judges-cum-Magistrates appointed on contract basis regularized in service after appearing in competitive examination

Inter-se seniority of such judges was to be reckoned from the date of their regularization in service and not from their initial appointment on contract basis

Regularization of service through deeming provision of S. 19(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973 was confined to pensionary benefits alone and could not be stretched to affect the seniority inter-se of persons who were already members of the judicial service.

Where civil servants were selected for promotion in a "batch'" or as a "group of persons" then the date of promotion of all the persons in the batch or the group shall be the date when anyone of them was first promoted to the post and they shall retain their inter se seniority

Word "batch" used in S. 7 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 ('the Act') had been interchangeably used as "group of persons" in R. 8 of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974

Promotees in the same grade, when considered and recommended for promotion for the next grade in the same Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) passed for a "batch" or "group of persons" and therefore as would be considered to have been promoted from the date when the first amongst the batch was promoted and would also retain their inter se seniority of the lower post.

Direct appointees/respondents were appointed through initial appointment on 3-12-2003, a day after the promotion of the first promotees out of the batch of promotees; hence the direct appointees would fall under the promotees in the seniority list

Appeals were allowed.

Contention of petitioners was that respondents were among the teaching staff of education department and their conversion from teaching to administrative staff and thereafter promotion was illegal

Validity

Writ jurisdiction of Chief Court could only be invoked by a person who had suffered a legal wrong and his right had been violated

Promotion was not a Fundamental Right of an individual and it would depend upon his eligibility-cum-fitness

If a person was eligible for promotion but he was not fit to share the responsibilities in higher rank then he should not be promoted to next grade

Question of eligibility for promotion did relate to the terms and conditions of service and same should be adjudicated upon by the Service Tribunal

If some persons were considered suitable for a particular job description then left over lot could not claim that they had been discriminated

Petitioners were juniors to the respondents and authorities had not affected their case by promotion or cadre change

Petitioners had filed departmental appeal during pendency of present writ petition and their such act was sufficient to decline discretionary relief in their favour

Administrative job was different from teaching cadre and no one could challenge that a junior one had been selected/promoted to an administrative post

Even petitioners had contested their cases in various Courts of law and they had not filed appeal against the judgment passed by the District Judge which had attained finality

Petitioners were estopped to file the present writ petition, in circumstances

Change of cadre of petitioners had been ordered by the competent authority after fulfillment of all the legal/codal formalities

Department was the best judge to place the suitable persons at appropriate place

Petitioners had no cause of action as they were not aggrieved persons

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Seniority in the case of ad-hoc employees was to be granted from the date of their regularization and not from the date of their ad-hoc appointment.

Seniority in the case of ad-hoc employees was to be granted from the date of their regularization and not from the date of their ad-hoc appointment.

Whether seniority of such civil servant was to be reckoned from date of his absorption in the new department or date of his initial appointment in his original department

Respondent was appointed as Preventive Officer (BS-11) in Customs House, whereas civil servant 'S' was working as Inspector (BS-11) in Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise

Both being in the Customs department holding posts in equal grade made a request for mutual transfer, which was accepted and the respondent was permanently absorbed as Inspector Customs, while "S" was absorbed as Preventive Officer

Held, that paragraph 6 of instructions contained in Serial No. 30, Chapter III, Part II of Estacode (1989 edition) clearly provided that where a person was transferred to another office in a situation where it was open to him to accept or refuse such transfer, his seniority was to be reckoned from the date of his transfer to the new office

Only exception to such rule was contained in paragraph 6(i)(b), which stated that where a person was compulsorily transferred to another office then he was allowed to count his service in the previous office towards his seniority in his new office

In the present case, the respondent sought his transfer to his new office on his own volition on the basis of mutual consent with another officer of the same grade; he was not compulsorily transferred at the instance of the department, hence the recognized practice contained in paragraph 6(i)(a) of Serial No. 30, Chapter III, Part II of Estacode (1989 edition) clearly disentitled him to count his previous service towards seniority in the new office

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal was set aside.

Petitioners-employees were regularized with immediate effect on promulgation of Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013

Contention of petitioners was that they were to be regularized from the date of their initial appointment

Validity

Employees appointed on ad hoc and contract basis were to be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis immediately before the commencement of Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013

Petitioners were to be regularized in service with immediate effect i.e. from the date of issuance of notification under Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 as before the commencement of said Act they were not working against the sanctioned budgetary posts but on fixed period project posts

Contract employees could not be termed as civil servants

Petitioners before regularization of their service were not civil servants as they were working on particular project on contract basis

Seniority of civil servant was to be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment

Appointment made on ad hoc basis could not be regularized retrospectively

Contract/ad-hoc period of service could not be counted in seniority of a civil servant

Service of employees having been regularized with immediate effect were to be regularized from the date of promulgation of Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013

Service of petitioners could not be regularized with effect from their initial appointment on contract basis

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Seniority in service, cadre or post to which an official was promoted was to take effect from the date of regular promotion to that service, cadre or post and not from the date of any ad-hoc induction.

Private respondent was appointed on ad-hoc basis and thereafter his service was regularized retrospectively from the date of initial ad-hoc appointment

Service appeal was filed against said order of regularization of service of respondent and retrospective regularization was set aside

Seniority and regularization of service of respondent was ordered to take effect from the date of order for regularization

Retrospective regularization and promotion of respondent was cancelled in compliance of judgment of Service Tribunal but same was again restored and orders of Service Tribunal were disobeyed

Validity

Impugned notification was in conflict with the decision of Service Tribunal whereby retrospective regularization and promotion was set aside

Department cancelled promotion of private respondent and regularization of service was given effect from the date of its regularization and not from the initial ad-hoc appointment

Appointment from BS-3 to BS-15 was to be made through Departmental Selection Committee after assessment of ability

No approval of Departmental Selection Committee was on record in the matter of respondent

Ad-hoc appointments were stop gap arrangement which were always made without adopting due process of law

Ad-hoc employee did not carry any vested right of regularization in service from the date of his induction

Period of ad-hoc appointment could not be counted towards service

Seniority in grade was to take effect from the date of regular appointment to the post and could not be conferred retrospectively

Ad-hoc appointee would only be entitled to seniority from the date of his regularization and not from the date of initial ad-hoc appointment

Department could not sit in appeal against the findings rendered by Service Tribunal

No sanctity could be attached to the impugned notification which was unlawful

Discrepancies in the service record of respondent with regard to his appointment, regularization and promotion were on record

Respondent had been allowed promotion in violation of judgment of the Supreme Court

Quorum of Departmental Promotion Committee in which matter of promotion of respondent was approved was not complete

Recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee were set aside and promotion of respondent was declared illegal

Respondent was neither entitled to retrospective seniority nor promotion

Employee could not claim promotion as a Fundamental or vested right

Impugned notification was set aside having no legal effect

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Seniority could only be determined from the date of regular appointment made either by initial recruitment, transfer or promotion.

Employee was inducted into service of serving department through mutual transfer against permanent post on regular basis

Mere fact that lien of employee was kept intact with the parent department did not mean that he was appointed on temporary or ad-hoc basis

Provision of lien in the parent department was provided just for the purpose that in case there was any hardship for a civil servant in the transferee department then he/she might join the service in the parent department

Regular induction of a civil servant made by transfer could not be given any other meaning

Seniority could only be determined from the date of regular appointment made either by initial recruitment, transfer or promotion

Appointments made otherwise could not be considered as regular appointment and not relevant for determination of seniority

Conditions for determination of seniority were regular appointment to the grade or post and continuous service

Induction of employee in the serving department was made through transfer which was one of the recognized modes of regular appointment and there was also continuity in his service

Serving department had to determine seniority of the employee from the date when he joined the post in the said department

Service Tribunal had failed to adhere to the fact that seniority had to be determined from the date of regular appointment and anti-dated/proforma appointment was not a regular appointment

Retrospective effect given to the appointments of respondents did not affect the right of seniority of inducted employee

Dismissal of appeal on the ground that said employee had not challenged the proforma appointment of respondent was illogical

Employee challenged the seniority list dated 22-11-2011 on 18-02-2012 after a period of eighty eight days which was within time

Impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was based on mis-reading and non-reading of record

Employee was inducted into service on regular basis through transfer order dated 09-09-2000 in the serving department

Seniority of employee should be reckoned from the date of joining of the post i.e. 11-09-2000 and not from the date when his lien came to an end in the parent department

Impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was set aside

Department was directed to determine the seniority of employee from the date of his induction i.e. 11-09-2000 and enter his name at proper place in the seniority list

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Batch fellows of civil servant were appointed as Section Officers on 11-02-2011 on the recommendations of Public Service Commission whereas appointment of appellant/employee was made on 29-04-2013 in compliance with direction of High Court

Employee filed appeal for determination of her seniority

Service Tribunal accepted appeal with the observation that seniority of employee would be reckoned along with the group appointed in pursuance of recommendations made by the Public Service Commission at the relevant time

Validity

Appointment order of the batch fellows of employee was issued on 11-02-2011

Employee filed writ petition and High Court accepted the same while issuing direction to the Public Service Commission to recommend the employee

Government appointed the employee on the said recommendation of Public Service Commission thereafter

Employee was illegally deprived of her vested right; right of appointment had accrued to the employee along with her batch fellows

Appointment of employee would be deemed to be made on the date when the group along whom she qualified the test/interview was appointed

Seniority should be determined on the basis of date of continuous/actual appointment, however where a civil servant had been deprived of his/her vested right then his matter of seniority should be considered retrospectively to redress his/her grievance and to protect his/her accrued right

Service Tribunal had not committed any illegality while passing the impugned judgment

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Appeal of employees was accepted with the direction to the Authority to give effect to the seniority of employees from current-charge/officiating promotion

Validity

Seniority in the grade to which a civil servant was promoted should take effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade

Confirmation of employees had been made from the date of current-charge appointment which was illegal and erroneous

Employees were not appointed against the clear vacancies on current-charge but against the posts of direct recruitment

Appointments of employees were not correct

Seniority could not be given to the employees retrospectively in circumstances

Promotion on officiating basis did not confer any right for regular promotion

Impugned seniority list was issued in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court

Direction given by the Service Tribunal to the Authority was illegal and violative of relevant law, rules and judgments of Supreme Court

Seniority under challenge was determined/fixed by the competent authority in pursuance of judgment of Supreme Court

Impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was recalled and seniority list issued by the authority was restored

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Employees who opted to change cadre shall be placed at the bottom of already serving employees.

Employees having accepted the terms and conditions of their appointment letters could not at later stage, deviate from their own acceptance; they having failed to show that they had challenged the vires of notification which affected their seniority, principle of estoppel applied to their cases

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Karachi Port Trust Officers Recruitment, Appointment, Seniority and Promotion Regulations, 2011 were statutory rules of service

Employees of Karachi Port Trust were not civil servants and they could not file service appeal before the Service Tribunal

Only remedy for the petitioner-employee was under Art.199 of the Constitution

Employee was appointed as Trainee Officer on ad hoc basis on 28-11-1989 and his services were regularized on 12-10-1995

Ad hoc appointment was made without adopting due process of law as a stopgap arrangement

Ad hoc employee did not carry any vested right to be regularized in service from the date of his induction

Period of ad hoc appointment could not be counted towards service

Seniority in grade was to be taken from the date of regular appointment to a post and it could not be conferred retrospectively

Ad hoc appointee would only be entitled to seniority from the date of his regularization and not from the date of initial appointment

No employee could claim fundamental or vested right with regard to promotion

An acting or looking after charge could neither be construed to be an appointment by promotion on regular basis for any purpose including seniority nor did it confer any vested right for regular promotion from the date of such an appointment

Appointment on current charge basis would be temporary in nature and a stopgap arrangement

Such appointment would remain operative for a short duration till regular appointment was made against the post

Petitioner was neither entitled for retrospective seniority nor promotion

Direct recruit could claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment and not from the date when he joined the service

Eligibility for promotion would relate to the terms and conditions of service while fitness for promotion was a subjective evaluation made on the basis of objective criteria

Promotion would depend on eligibility, fitness and availability of vacancy

Competent authority could make appointment, determine seniority, eligibility, fitness and promotion and other ancillary matters with regard to terms and conditions of employees

Seniority in service cadre or post to which an official was promoted was to take effect from the date of regular promotion to that service, cadre or post and not from any ad hoc induction

Employee could not claim promotion from the date when he assumed acting charge or from the date when vacancy occurred

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners were employees of National Commission for Human Development and had assailed order dated 21-11-2016 whereby five other officials were given additional charge of respective posts

Petitioners contended that giving of additional charge had indirectly affected and prejudiced their rights in context of seniority and future prospects of promotion

Single Judge of High Court allowed petition and set aside notification dated 21-11-2016

Validity

National Commission for Human Development Employees Service Rules, 2006 were non-statutory rules

Giving additional charge of the post was not barred under National Commission for Human Development Ordinance, 2002 read with National Commission for Human Development Employees Service Rules, 2006, therefore, notification in question was not issued in violation of National Commission for Human Development Employees Service Rules, 2006

Provision of R.14 of National Commission for Human Development Employees Service Rules, 2006 was not attracted in case of giving additional charge of a post

Order assailed by petitioner through Constitutional petition had no effect of prejudicing their rights relating to seniority or promotion

Petitioners were not 'aggrieved' for purposes of Art.199 of the Constitution

Right of appeal was not available under National Commission for Human Development Employees Service Rules, 2006 against notification dated 21-11-2016 as it was not issued by a supervisory officer

Constitutional petition filed by petitioners was not maintainable and was devoid of merits

Division Bench of High Court set aside order passed by Single Judge of High Court

Intra court appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Service Tribunal ordered for determination of seniority of the relevant cadres diploma holder Sub-Engineer and B. Tech. (Hons) employees of the department according to departmental rules on the basis of their first appointment/induction into service

Validity

Authority could cause seniority list from time to time of the members of service, cadre or grade

Seniority would take place from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade

Civil servants who were selected for promotion to higher grade in one batch should on their promotion retain their inter se-seniority

Promotion of Sub-Engineer on creation of vacancy of Assistant Engineer should be made while considering the respective dates of obtaining qualification along with the prescribed experience after such qualification

All qualified persons while passing acting/current charge promotion orders should have been considered and if the posts were available then promotion order for regular induction should have been made

Officiating promotion order could be made when post fell vacant as a result of deputation, leave or on current charge basis of the regular incumbent

Qualified civil servant having relevant experience and qualification prescribed for the post might be appointed/promoted but such promotion would not confer any right for regular promotion

All eligible persons were not considered while issuing the promotion orders on current charge basis and officiating basis, only the appellants were considered for such promotion

Judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was legal

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Respondents and appellant, were selected by Federal Public Service Commission as Veterinary Officers (BS-17) in the year 1990, and were so appointed the same year

Federal Public Service Commission as per merit placed respondents senior to appellant, however, in the seniority list, issued by the department subsequently, the order of seniority was altered and respondents were placed junior to appellant

On the basis of the said seniority list, appellant was promoted to BS-18 in the year 1996

Admittedly, the seniority list, whereby the seniority assigned by Federal Public Service Commission to respondents was altered by ranking appellant senior to respondents, was upon circulation, duly signed by respondents without any protest

Respondents challenged seniority list and promotion of appellant to BS-18 before the Service Tribunal, three years after the appellant had been promoted

Tribunal through its judgment though gave directions to rectify the seniority list but declined to pass any order regarding the promotion of appellant to BS-18

Respondents felt content with the said order and did not pursue their further relief regarding the promotion of appellant to BS-18

During the pendency of respondents' appeal before the Tribunal, two direct inductees were appointed in BS-18, however, neither were they impleaded in the appeal nor was any relief sought against them by respondents

In the examination held for the post to which direct inductees had been appointed, the respondents also participated but failed

Respondents never challenged the appointment of the direct inductees and it was at least about seven years after the said appointment, that respondents sought seniority over direct inductees, also, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, they were not entitled to as direct inductees were appointed in BS-18 about seven years prior to the promotion of respondents in the said cadre, and had in fact failed in their attempt for their appointment along with the direct inductees

In terms of proviso (3) of R. 3 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, respondents, being senior to appellant, were, upon promotion to BS-18, entitled to their original seniority but having remained indolent in the matter and not having challenged the change in the seniority list for more than three years, and further having remained satisfied with the judgment of the Service Tribunal and by not challenging the same, had contributed to the creation of an anomalous situation

Furthermore, the Tribunal's judgment, whereby it declined relief of promotion to respondents from the date the appellant was promoted to BS-18, operated as res-judicata in respect of the said issue

Supreme Court directed that the seniority of the respondents, appellant and direct inductees should be assigned in the order of their promotions/appointments in BPS-18

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Violation of the law.

Respondents and appellant, were selected by Federal Public Service Commission as Veterinary Officers (BS-17) in the year 1990, and were so appointed the same year

Federal Public Service Commission as per merit placed respondents senior to appellant, however, in the seniority list, issued by the department subsequently, the order of seniority was altered and respondents were placed junior to appellant

On the basis of the said seniority list, appellant was promoted to BS-18 in the year 1996

Admittedly, the seniority list, whereby the seniority assigned by Federal Public Service Commission to respondents was altered by ranking appellant senior to respondents, was upon circulation, duly signed by respondents without any protest

Respondents challenged seniority list and promotion of appellant to BS-18 before the Service Tribunal, three years after the appellant had been promoted

Tribunal through its judgment though gave directions to rectify the seniority list but declined to pass any order regarding the promotion of appellant to BS-18

Respondents felt content with the said order and did not pursue their further relief regarding the promotion of appellant to BS-18

During the pendency of respondents' appeal before the Tribunal, two direct inductees were appointed in BS-18, however, neither were they impleaded in the appeal nor was any relief sought against them by respondents

In the examination held for the post to which direct inductees had been appointed, the respondents also participated but failed

Respondents never challenged the appointment of the direct inductees and it was at least about seven years after the said appointment, that respondents sought seniority over direct inductees, also, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, they were not entitled to as direct inductees were appointed in BS-18 about seven years prior to the promotion of respondents in the said cadre, and had in fact failed in their attempt for their appointment along with the direct inductees

In terms of proviso (3) of R. 3 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, respondents, being senior to appellant, were, upon promotion to BS-18, entitled to their original seniority but having remained indolent in the matter and not having challenged the change in the seniority list for more than three years, and further having remained satisfied with the judgment of the Service Tribunal and by not challenging the same, had contributed to the creation of an anomalous situation

Furthermore, the Tribunal's judgment, whereby it declined relief of promotion to respondents from the date the appellant was promoted to BS-18, operated as res-judicata in respect of the said issue

Supreme Court directed that the seniority of the respondents, appellant and direct inductees should be assigned in the order of their promotions/appointments in BPS-18

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Civil servant could not approach High Court for redressal of his grievance which was with regard to his terms and conditions of service

Such grievance of a civil servant would fall within the domain of Service Tribunal

Constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was not competent, however, petitioner might if so advised approach the departmental authorities or invoke the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Violation of the law.

Services of employees (respondents) was regularized and they were assigned seniority from the date of their initial appointment on ad hoc basis

Contention of appellant was that ad hoc service of a government employee could not be counted for the purposes of seniority or promotion to affect the rights of other employee who was regularly inducted into service prior to regularization of ad hoc employee

Validity

Service rendered by the employee on ad hoc basis prior to regularization could not be counted for the purpose of seniority but seniority should be counted from the date of substantive appointment

Ad hoc service unless regularized by the competent authority did not confer any right either for regular absorption nor same could be counted towards seniority except that it could be counted towards length of service for the purpose of pension if ultimately regularized

Appellant was appointed on regular basis prior to regularization of services of respondents (employees)

Appellant being selectee of Public Service Commission was required to rank senior to the respondents (employees) who were regularized through process of Administration Committee of High Court (Balochistan)

Administration Committee had no authority to regularize the services of respondents (employees) from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment retrospectively

Government or Administration Committee of the High Court had power to ignore consciously any section of Act or any rule that might prohibit or restrain it to do what they were attempting to do provided they limited their action to what was just and equitable

Administration Committee while regularizing services of respondents (employees) from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment had exercised its discretionary power in an arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious manner which had caused injury to the appellant

Illegal acts would remain illegal and would not become legal by efflux of time

Appellant as well as non-appealing judicial officers who were also appointed on regular basis prior to the regularization of ad hoc services of respondents (employees) were declared senior to the respondents (employees) whose ad hoc services were regularized retrospectively

Cases of appellant and as well as non-appealing judicial officers were referred to the Administration Committee of High Court (Balochistan) for consideration of their promotion to the next grade from the date when respondents were promoted

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner, an employee of the Agriculture Department was aggrieved of not having been considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee

Validity

Prerequisite to he considered for promotion was the eligibility of the official and once he crossed such barrier and was considered for promotion, only then the question of fitness would arise

Case of petitioner fell within the ambit of determination of eligibility, which for all intents and purposes, was part of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant

Under Art.212 of the Constitution, it was beyond the powers of judicial review of High Court to adjudicate on the question of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.

Secretary Agriculture Department, submitted panel of appellant and his co-employee before Provincial Selection Board-1 for their promotion to the rank of Associate Professor (B-19) against two available vacancies; but there being only one post for promotion quota available, Board after due consideration, recommended co-employee (Seniority No.1) for promotion as Associate Professor (BPS-19)

Board observing deficiency in the existing Balochistan Agriculture College, Quetta (B-16 and above) Service Rules, 1993, advised, Secretary Agriculture Department to revisit said Rules and make amendments in a manner that prescribed length of service as well as provision for publication of research papers, could be added in the appendix of Balochistan Agriculture College, Quetta (B-16 and above) Service Rules, 1993

Appellant had raised objection on said observation of the Board

Validity

Government was competent to change criteria for promotion; it was prerogative of the Government to enact and amend the Rules according to the needs and exigencies of service; and it was the right of Department to improve and update its service structure to keep pace with the modern times which could not be restrained or restricted on the ground that at the time of appointment of one or few civil servants such qualification was not a requirement for promotion

Appeal filed by appellant was dismissed in circumstances.

Rule 11(2)(c) of Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985, was confined to determination of seniority amongst the encadred police officers from the Provinces

Where question of seniority arose either between those coming from the same Province or between officers encadred from different Provinces the same would be determined in accordance with R. 11(2)(c) of the said Rules

Rule 11(2)(c) of the Rules was thus to be restricted only to the determination of seniority in the encadred group and could not be made applicable for determining their seniority vis-a-vis the other two groups (i.e. officers inducted into the Police Service of Pakistan through initial appointment and those appointed in the Police Service of Pakistan from the Armed Forces).

Question as to whether seniority of such police officers was to be reckoned from the date when the vacancies occurred in the senior cadre reserved for that particular Province or from the date of notification of their encadrement

Ante-date encadrement of the Provincial police officers in the Police Service of Pakistan

Legality

Rule 7 of Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985 did not specifically mention retrospective appointment (ante-dated encadrement) of such officers from the date on which the vacancy arose in a Province

Use of the words "shall be appointed to the service" in said R. 7 indicated that the appointment of such police officers from the Province into the Police Service of Pakistan was to be with prospective effect and not retrospective effect

Retrospective effect could be given to such appointments only for the limited purpose of determining their own inter se seniority in accordance with R.11(2)(c) of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985

Notification whereby provincial police officers were appointed to Police Service of Pakistan retrospectively was declared to be in violation of R.7 of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Rule 11(2)(c) of Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985, was confined to determination of seniority amongst the encadred police officers from the Provinces

Where question of seniority arose either between those coming from the same Province or between officers encadred from different Provinces the same would be determined in accordance with R. 11(2)(c) of the said Rules

Rule 11(2)(c) of the Rules was thus to be restricted only to the determination of seniority in the encadred group and could not be made applicable for determining their seniority vis-a-vis the other two groups (i.e. officers inducted into the Police Service of Pakistan through initial appointment and those appointed in the Police Service of Pakistan from the Armed Forces).

Question as to whether seniority of such police officers was to be reckoned from the date when the vacancies occurred in the senior cadre reserved for that particular Province or from the date of notification of their encadrement

Ante-date encadrement of the Provincial police officers in the Police Service of Pakistan

Legality

Rule 7 of Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985 did not specifically mention retrospective appointment (ante-dated encadrement) of such officers from the date on which the vacancy arose in a Province

Use of the words "shall be appointed to the service" in said R. 7 indicated that the appointment of such police officers from the Province into the Police Service of Pakistan was to be with prospective effect and not retrospective effect

Retrospective effect could be given to such appointments only for the limited purpose of determining their own inter se seniority in accordance with R.11(2)(c) of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985

Notification whereby provincial police officers were appointed to Police Service of Pakistan retrospectively was declared to be in violation of R.7 of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.