| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 1001 1997 SLD 1001 1997 PLC 993 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 833 of 1995, decision dated: 25-06-1997. (On appeal from the judgment dated 15-3-1995 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 8(R) of 1995).
AJMAL MIAN, ACTG. C.J., RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, JJ
Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, AdvocateonRecord for Appellant. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1. Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, AdvocateonRecord for Respon
Civil Appeal No. 833 of 1995, decision dated: 25-06-1997. (On appeal from the judgment dated 15-3-1995 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 8(R) of 1995).
AJMAL MIAN, ACTG. C.J., RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, JJ
Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, AdvocateonRecord for Appellant. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1. Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, AdvocateonRecord for Respon
Miss NUZHAT MAHMOOD
VS
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, HYDROCARBON INSTITUTE, ISLAMABAD and 5 others
Law:
Section:
Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan Employees Service Rules, 1987Rr. 13 & 14 (unamended)SeniorityPromotionAppellant and contesting respondents, since year 1982 till dote of their promotion viz. 1111987 had been continuously performing their duties and functions as officers in Grade B-16 and respondents were senior to appellantNo ostensible distinction between status of the "post" held by either of the party existed except its nomenclatureChannel of the promotion under the Departmental Service Rules clearly indicated that officers with specified experience was eligible for promotionDepartmental Service Rules also clearly stated that determining factor for ascertaining inter se seniority or promotion to higher grade when made on the same day or in one batch shall be relatable to their respective seniority existing in the lower gradeHeld, since the respondents were senior to the applicant in lower grade, therefore, on their promotion on one and the same day they were rightly assigned seniority over the appellant in circumstances. In the present case since year; 1982 till date of their promotion viz. 1111987, appellant and contesting respondents had been continuously performing their duties and functions as officers in Grade B16. There did not exist any ostensible distinction between status of the ' post' held by either of the party except its nomenclature Additionally channel of promotion under the Service Rules clearly indicated the A.S.O., Laboratory Technicians and Senior Scientific Assistant (B16) with specified experience were eligible for promotion as S. O. (ChemistB17). Departmental Service Rules regarding seniority and promotion supra clearly indicated that determining factor for ascertaining inter se seniority on promotion to higher grade when made on the same day or in one batch shall be relatable to their respective seniority, existing in the lower grade. There is no doubt that educational qualification for initial appointment of A.S.O. (Chemist) is higher than that of Laboratory Technician and Scientific Assistant. Nevertheless, under the Service Rules both have been placed in the same 'grade' despite apparent distinction of duties in…
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