| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3595 2025 SLG 3595 = 2026 SCP 209 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
CPLA. Nos. 914-K to 919-K of 2023 Appeal against the Judgment dated 22.05. 2023 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi in Appeals No. to 32 to 37/2022
Presented By: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
Mr. Abdul Salam Memon, ASC and
Respondent No.78 in person (In CP.No.914-K/2023) Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Baloch, AOR (for
Respondent No.99 in CPLA.No.914-K to 919- K/2023) Mr. Sibtain Mahmud, Addl. A.G. A/w Mr. Suresh Kumar, Addl.A.G and Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Dy. Secretary BOR.
CPLA. Nos. 914-K to 919-K of 2023 Appeal against the Judgment dated 22.05. 2023 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi in Appeals No. to 32 to 37/2022
Presented By: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
Mr. Abdul Salam Memon, ASC and
Respondent No.78 in person (In CP.No.914-K/2023) Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Baloch, AOR (for
Respondent No.99 in CPLA.No.914-K to 919- K/2023) Mr. Sibtain Mahmud, Addl. A.G. A/w Mr. Suresh Kumar, Addl.A.G and Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Dy. Secretary BOR.
Faheemuddin Memon Sajjad Ahmed Abro Abdul Sattar Manzoor Ali Siyal Manshad Ali Ali Muhammad Babar (In CP.914-K/2023) (In CP.915-K/2023) (In CP.916-K/2023) (In CP.917-K/2023) (In CP.918-K/2023) (In CP.919-K/2023) …Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary & others …Respondent(s)
Law: Sindh Civil Servants Act, (XIV of 1973)
Section: 8,9
Law: Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975
Section: 9,10,11,13-A
(1) Distinction between “supersession” and “deferment” (2) Rule 13-A of 1975 Rules for determination of inter-se seniority (3) Principle “Birds of a feather flock together” explained. Summary: The Sindh High Court converted several civil petitions into appeals and partly allowed them, upholding the departmental application of Rule 13-A (deferment) to restore deferred promotees’ inter-se seniority with their batchmates while remanding the limited issue of inter-se ranking between promoted (including retrospectively ranked deferred promotees) and directly recruited Mukhtiarkars for re-examination. The Court found that deferment (not supersession) preserves batch seniority once the impediment is removed, directed the Secretary Revenue Department to correct any lapses in the Final Seniority List dated 08.06.2021 within two months after hearing stakeholders, and confirmed that directly recruited Mukhtiarkars’ seniority is reckoned from their regular appointment date (31.10.2011) while promotions are subject to quota and availability. Core facts: Parties and relief: Several civil petitions against Sindh Service Tribunal’s consolidated judgment (22.05.2023) concerning seniority of Mukhtiarkars (BPS-16). Three categories involved: (i) promotees promoted 03.01.2011, (ii) deferred promotees later promoted (2012–2014) but given retrospective seniority from 03.01.2011, (iii) direct recruits appointed 31.10.2011 via SPSC. Central dispute: Whether deferred promotees could be assigned retrospective seniority (matching 03.01.2011) and how promoted vs direct recruits inter-se seniority should be fixed. Procedural history: DPC recommended 37 promotions (27.11.2010 → notified 03.01.2011); 54 were deferred for disciplinary/other reasons; 95 direct recruits appointed 31.10.2011; prior Tribunal set aside 2015 seniority list (29.04.2016); SHC remanded matter (19.01.2021) for fresh seniority complying with quota and related directions. Legal distinction clarified: “Supersession” (negative finding on fitness, causes loss of inter-se seniority) vs “Deferment” (administrative postponement;…