| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 1609 2001 SLD 1609 2001 SCMR 1942 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 1253 to 1257 of 1995, decision dated: 17-05-2001
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, ACTGC.J., CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JJ
Appellant No. 5 in person. Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for the Official
Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 1253 to 1257 of 1995, decision dated: 17-05-2001
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, ACTGC.J., CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JJ
Appellant No. 5 in person. Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for the Official
Respondents
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 4 others
VS
KHALILURREIIMAN and 7 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 212(3)SeniorityLeave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine the contention that the -Petitioners were not parties to the -Respondent's appeals before the Service Tribunal and had no opportunity of being heard; that case of the -Petitioners was that they belonged to the cadre of Assistant Superintendent (Office) while the appellants before the Tribunal were Assistant Superintendents (Field); that the ratio of the office and Field Assistant Superintendents was 30:70 and that, therefore, the direction for the preparation of a combined list of the Office and Field Assistant Superintendents was against law and order of the Tribunal would adversely affect their rights. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 212SenioirtyPromotionAppeal to Supreme CourtFederal Service Tribunal, in unequivocal terms, had taken the stance which had been taken by the Department that no person junior to the appellant had been promoted, and therefore, he had no cause of action to agitate any grievance before the Tribunal, Department had rightly stated that the relevant seniority list lead not been placed on the record before the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal had rightly observed that it could not be held with certainty as to whether any person junior to the appellant had or had not been promotedService Tribunal with the consent of the parties and without going into the merit's of the case had directed the Department to prepare a seniority list of all the employees of the cadres in question and circulate the same amongst all concerned for objections, if any, and, that if the said exercise had not been carried out it should be carried out expeditiously but not later than 60 days from the orderSupreme Court observed that in the presence of the direction issued by the Service Tribunal the appellant should have waited for the circulation of the departmental seniority list and if he had felt aggrieved against that, he should have filed objections thereto and then proceed further against the provisional /tentative seniority listSupreme Court, in circumstances, recalled the leave granting order by the Supreme Court and iii consequence…
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