Judgment in rem

The central issue in the present case revolved around the determination of inter-se seniority of officers of the Pakistan Customs Service (PCS) belonging to the 24th and 25th Common Training Programs (CTP)

The dispute arose when the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) issued revised seniority lists applying the Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority Rules, 1990 (the 1990 Rules) (as amended in 2001) retrospectively, which relegated Respondent No.1 to a lower position despite her earlier probation completion and promotion based on CSS merit

The controversy in the present petition was "whether Respondent No. 1 of the 25th CTP could claim the same benefit as extended to officers of the 24th CTP, and whether the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) rightly treated the Supreme Court's prior ruling as a judgment in rem, extending equal relief to similarly placed officers"?

Held: The revised seniority list under the facts and circumstances of the present case showed that the same was issued in violation of the judgment of the FST as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court for the reason that reliance on the Rules 1990, was misplaced as respondents were already promoted as per CSS merit list and their probation period already stood completed

Petitioner department was not justified to cause any delay in the implementation of the judgment of FST dated 30.07.2015 in the case of respondents, particularly when the legal issue involved in present case had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court in an earlier judgment

Facts of the present case were similar to the facts in an earlier Supreme Court judgment involving the same seniority list, therefore, the ratio of the earlier Supreme Court judgment was also attracted in the present case, for the reason that the said judgment was in rem and in view of the large number of judgments of the Supreme Court, the benefit of the judgment in rem could be extended to similarly placed parties

No illegality or error was found in the impugned order passed by the FST

Present petition did not raise a substantial question of law of public importance and warranted no interference by the Supreme Court within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

When a Tribunal decides any question of law by dint of its judgment, the said judgment is always treated as being in rem, and not in personam.

Neither necessary nor the requirement of law that Court should issue a separate notice and offer an opportunity of hearing to each and every person who is likely to be affected, and bound, by judgment in rem

Meaning and scope of a judgment in rem stated.

Where the Tribunal or the Supreme Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken up legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates of justice and rules of good governance demand that the benefit of the judgment be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the above litigation, instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum.

Neither necessary nor the requirement of law that Court should issue a separate notice and offer an opportunity of hearing to each and every person who is likely to be affected, and bound, by judgment in rem

Meaning and scope of a judgment in rem stated.

Where the Tribunal or the Supreme Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken up legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates of justice and rules of good governance demand that the benefit of the judgment be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the above litigation, instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum.

Meaning and scope illustrated.

Contention of employees was that earlier constitutional petition filed by their colleagues had been allowed and they had been upgraded but benefit of said judgment had not been extended to them

Validity

Order of High Court for up-gradation of posts of Guard had been passed in the earlier constitutional petition which was not challenged by the department

Said order had attained finality and had been implemented by the department

Benefiting certain individuals and denying the same benefit to all other equally placed persons was against the canon of justice

Case of employees (petitioners) was at par with the employees who had been upgraded

Department was directed to extend the same benefit to all the Guards of Railways within three month

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Grievance of appellants was that after they were reinstated in service, authorities declined to give them their back-benefits, whereas their other colleagues were given such benefits

Validity

In other cases those civil servants were reinstated with all back-benefits

Dictum laid down by Service Tribunal in earlier appeals was maintained by Supreme Court meaning thereby that grant of back-benefits to affected civil servants was upheld by Supreme Court

Service Tribunal did not have any other option but to follow the judgments of Supreme Court in terms of Art.189 of the Constitution

In 'similarly placed facts and circumstances of the case as that of earlier appellants, the civil servants were not only reinstated in service but also granted back-benefits and extension of such relief to all the affected civil servants was a mandate of law, whether those civil servants had come to Court or not

Service Tribunal directed the authorities to pay all back-benefits to appellants which they were entitled during intervening period

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Where any law, statutory rule etc. on being challenged, is interpreted and decided one way or the other by superior courts, then such interpretation, application of law, rule etc., not only decides the right of the person who had approached the court of law but is also judgment in rem as regards interpretation and application of impugned law, statutory rule etc. applied by concerned public, statutory agencies, authorities, bodies and functionaries etc.

Judgment of High Court and Supreme Court to the extent it decides a question of law or is based upon principle of law or enunciate/interpret law, statutory rule etc. is not only binding on all subordinate courts, tribunals but is also binding on all public and statutory functionaries etc.

Such judgment hold good and should be applied by all such public and statutory functionaries etc. to all persons or class of persons affected by such law, rule etc. without forcing or driving such person to obtain re-affirmation of legal position already declared by superior courts in earlier round of litigation to which such person was not a party, unless such decision is revisited by court in review, revision, appeal or larger bench has taken a different view.

Contentions of the petitioner were that neither notice about grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court nor that of ex parte order by the Supreme Court was served upon him; that he was one of the petitioners who impugned the departmental orders of retrenchment and termination before the High Court, which were set aside to appeal by the Supreme Court; that the moment he came to know about the decision of the Supreme Court, he had approached the Court and filed Civil Review Petition well within time and that though he was a non-appealing party in the appeals, yet he was entitled to the same relief on the basis of principle of equality

Validity

Held, since the services of all such persons were dispensed with by, single order, as such, there was no distinction between their case and that of the appellants and was identical on all fours

When Tribunal or Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covered not only the case of civil servants who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who might have not taken any legal proceedings, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the decision be extended to other civil servants, who might not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum

­Article 25 of the Constitution was also explicit on the point that all citizens were equal before law and were entitled to equal protection of law.

Definition.