Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 2343 2020 SLD 2343 2020 PLC 1055
Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Punjab
Service Appeal No. 13-P of 2015, decided on 9th February, 2019, Date of hearing: 9th February, 2019.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE IJAZ ANWAR, JUSTICE
Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Malik for Petitioner. Khalid Rehman and Muhammad Zafar Tahirkheli for
Respondents.

SHAFIQ AHMAD TANOLI, D&SJ

VS

THE REGISTRAR, PHC, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT IJAZ ANWAR, J.---- Through this single judgment, this Tribunal shall also dispose of Service Appeal No.22-P/2015 filed by the present appellant, as identical legal and factual questions are involved therein. 2. Appellant, Shafiq Ahamad Tanoli, District and Sessions Judge, through instant appeal under section 5 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991, has impugned the order dated 14.03.2014, passed by Administration Committee of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, with the following prayer: It is humbly prayed that in the given facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the subject, the appellant may graciously be allowed ante dated promotion with effect from 30.06.2010 with all back benefits and disputed seniority list of DSJs which found to be printed on 09.10.2014 but circulated vide letter No.15955-16023/Admn. Dated 5.12.2014 be also corrected and the appellant be placed on the right place as solicited. 3. In essence, the grievance of the appellant is that batch-mate of the appellant were promoted as D SJ on 30.06.2010 vide Notification No.P (a)31-D-149-J but case of the appellant for promotion was not considered and junior officers were promoted on account of wrong, illegal and disputed seniority list. 4. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused. 5. For the purpose of brevity, we are not reproducing the arguments of the counsel for the parties; however, it will be discussed in the judgment at the relevant place. In the instant case, the dispute pertains to seniority of promotees and direct appointees. The appellant was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge vide Notification No.41-J dated 27.03.2003, whereas, six Senior Civil Judges were promoted in the promotion quota vide notification dated 22.05.2002. Similarly, further promotion of about twenty two Senior Civil Judges were notified vide Notification dated 25.06.2003. 6. It is the case of the appellant that appointment through direct recruitment was earlier in time but promotees were given seniority despite the fact that their promotion was against newly created posts besides their promotion notification is later in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492