| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 2197 1992 SLD 2197 1992 PLJ 166 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 477 of 1988, accepted on 8.12.1991. [On appeal from Judgment and order Dated 3.11.1987, of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 128 (R) of 1984.] Date of hearing: 8.12.1991.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH CJ, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
KJiawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. Manzoor Elahi, EX-AOR for Appellants. Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Deputy Attorney General and Ch. Akhtar All, AOR for
Respondents 1&2. Sardar Akhtar Ali Khan, Advocate, Supreme Court for Respo
Civil Appeal No. 477 of 1988, accepted on 8.12.1991. [On appeal from Judgment and order Dated 3.11.1987, of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 128 (R) of 1984.] Date of hearing: 8.12.1991.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH CJ, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
KJiawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. Manzoor Elahi, EX-AOR for Appellants. Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Deputy Attorney General and Ch. Akhtar All, AOR for
Respondents 1&2. Sardar Akhtar Ali Khan, Advocate, Supreme Court for Respo
MUHAMMAD RIAZ and others--Appellants
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, and others--Respondents
Law:
Section:
Seniority-- —Trained Graduate Teachers--.-4d-/i0c appointment of-Regularisation from dates of their induction in service-Whether there is any prohibition in law hi regularising ad-hoc appointees from their original date of induction-Question of-Contention that appellants were appointed against existing vacancies, is disputed by respondents-Held: Service Tribunal is proper forum for resolving factual and legal controversies arising in a service matter-Case remanded to Service Tribunal. [Pp.l67168]A3,CD PLD 1980 SC 22 and 1991 SCMR 2216 rel. JUDGMENT Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J.--This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 3.11.1987 of the Service Tribunal. 2The facts of the case as noted in the Leave Granting Order are as under:- The appellants were inducted in service as Trained Graduate Teachers in 1976-77, on ad hoc basis. The appointment was made ad hoc because there was a ban on regular appointment. In 1980, their appointments were regularised. In 1983, by an office order, the regularisation was given retrospective effect Unking it with the original date of induction on ad hoc basis. This adversely affected the seniority of respondent No.3. He after the normal channel of representation, filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was accepted by it. 3. Learned counsel has analysed the impugned judgment as follows:- (/) There are strong observations showing as if the regularisation itself in 1980 was illegal: (it) that retrospective effect could not at all have been given to the regularisation: (//;) that there were no vacancies available in 1976-77 or thereafter till 1983 permitting retrospective effect to the regularisation; (iv) and/or that competent authority had not approved the regularisation whether with retrospective or prospective effect. 4. Learned counsel has brought under challenge each one of the afore- noted aspects of the impugned judgment. He…
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