| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1998 SLG 860 1998 SLD 860 1998 SCMR 2216 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1996, decision dated: 11th June. 1998 (On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 25-1-1995 passed in Appeal No. 479-R of 1994)
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Deputy A.G. and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1996, decision dated: 11th June. 1998 (On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 25-1-1995 passed in Appeal No. 479-R of 1994)
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Deputy A.G. and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents
Major (Retd.) MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
VS
SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 3 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--S. 4---Fundamental Rules, R. 27---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Appeal to Service Tribunal---Limitation---Advance increments as recommended by the Selection Board denied to the appointee by the Establishment Division---Validity---Leave to Appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine, whether the observation of the Service Tribunal that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred was correct and whether on merits the appellant was 'entitled to the grant of advance increments keeping in view the fact that in similar other cases, advance increments were granted to the appointees at the initial stage. (b) Fundamental Rules--- R. 27---Advance increments---Entitlement---Advance increments in terms of R. 27, Fundamental Rules can only be granted if no other candidate was available for appointment at the minimum pay scale---Where as per record, many other candidates were willing to accept the appointment at the minimum pay scale and Selection Board had also recommended three other candidates as reserved ones, the basic requirement of the Rules was missing and, therefore, refusal to grant advance increments to the appointee was justified. JUDGMENT SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The above appeal with the leave of this Court is directed against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 25-1-1995 dismissing service appeal filed by the appellant, both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant was selected by the departmental Selection Board of respondent No.4 (Heavy Industries, Taxila) as Assistant Administrative Officer (B-17). The Selection Board, at the time of formulating its recommendations, keeping in view qualification and experience of the appellant, recommended grant of 5 premature increments to the appellant. However, the appointment letter issued to the appellant on 1-1-1991 did not allow him any advance increment. The appellant made a representation to the Secretary Establishment on 24-12-1991 for grant of 5 advance increments as recommended by the Selection Board. The Establishment Division, however, rejected his request. The appellant…
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