Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLG 780 1996 SLD 780 1996 PLC 1097
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Appeal No. 411 (R) of 1995, decision dated: 8-11-1995
ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM, CHAIRMAN, AND ROSHAN ALI MANGI, MEMBER

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

[Federal Service Tribunal] SAJJAD AHMED JAVED BHATTI

VS

SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD SAJJAD AHMED JAVED BHATTI vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Law:

Section:

Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)-------S. 4---Power of Tribunal to review its ---Judgment of Tribunal according to which claim of civil servant with regard to retrospective seniority was rejected, was upheld up to Supreme Court---Matter of controversy having been decided up to the level of Supreme Court, same could not be reopened in appeal before Tribunal. 1992 SCMR 1908; 1986 SCMR 808; 1991 SCMR 1748 and Zafar Hussain v. Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Law and Justice 1993 SCMR 2340 ref. Appellant in person Date of hearing: 6th November, 1995. JUDGMENT ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN). ---The facts of this appeal are that the appellant Mr. Sajjad Ahmed Javed Bhatti qualified C.S.S. Examination in the year 1969 and was appointed in Foreign Service but was transferred to Police Service in the year 1970. In the year 1982, some of his batch-mates were promoted but the case of the appellant was not considered and finally the Central Selection Board in the year 1985 cleared him for promotion and he was promoted to the post of D.I.-G. Police. His case was that since his juniors were earlier promoted, therefore, he may be given seniority retrospectively from 1982. His representation was rejected on 27-4-1986 to which he filed Appeal No. 132(L)/86. The same was dismissed and it was clearly mentioned that after perusing the record, the Tribunal was convinced that interpretation of the term 'Not cleared for promotion' by the Establishment Division in all such cases has been read universally as ' super-session' . This appeal was decided on 28-11-1989. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Tribunal in the Supreme Court. Leave to Appeal was granted and finally the Supreme Court after hearing the parties dismissed his Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1991 by judgment dated 1-12-1992 with the clear observations that while considering the promotion of the appellant to Grade-19, the terminology used by the C.S.B. "not cleared for promotion" definitely carried the adverse impression that he was not approved for promotion and, therefore, the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the appellant was superseded in the meeting of the C.S.B. held on 11-12-1983 was…
🔒
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