Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 2384 1985 SLD 2384 1985 PLC 228
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Case No. 92/1600 of 1982, decided on 1st February, 1984.
S. ABDUL, JABBAR KHAN, CHAIRMAN, MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN AND ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY, MEMBERS
General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and 32 others

SARWAR HAYAT KHAN

VS

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Additional Chief Secretary, Services,

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil service-- ---Seniority--Civil servant transferred to new cadre at his own request, held, liable to be placed junior in new cadre despite fact that no condition about seniority was mentioned in transfer order. (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)-- ---S.4--Appellant felt aggrieved about seniority in 1974--Sought remedy before Tribunal in 1982--Appeal, held, hopelessly time-barred. Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant. A.G. Hyumayun, District Attorney for Respondents. JUDGMENT S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Sarwar Hayat Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Additional Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and 32 others as mentioned in Annexure 'A/1', as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the appellant be placed at serial No. 68 of the seniority list corrected upto 30th June, 1981, by accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned seniority list in so far as it relates to the appellant and the respondents No.2 to 32. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in seniority list issued in June, 1981, and corrected upto 30-6-1981, by respondent No. 1, the appellant has been shown as junior to the respondents whereas by virtue of his appointment as Naib-Tehsildar from 6-2-1982, the appellant was senior to the respondents and entitled to be placed at serial No. 69 of the impugned seniority list. It may be mentioned here that he was declared junior in the list of 30-3-1974 and he kept on making representations against the same but could not succeed. Meanwhile the appellant was promoted as Extra Assistant Commissioner and has once again come up before us with the same grievance. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. The facts of the matter are that the appellant was selected by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan as Naib-Tehsildar and he started service from` 5-6-1962. Subsequently he was transferred to Sargodha, at his…
🔒
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