Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 928 2004 SLD 928 2004 SCMR 497
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.471 K of 2002, decision dated: 10-12-2003.hearing DATE : 24-10-2003.(On appeal from the judgment of Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi dated 28 2 2002 passed in Appeal No.358 of 1998)
RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JJ
Manzoor Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 18. Naraindas C. Motiani, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate on-Record for
Respondent No. 6

MUHAMMAD ZAKIR KHAN

VS

GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974-- Rr.6 A & 7(1) Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, R.12(a)(b) Sindh Civil Servants Act (XV of 1973), Ss. 8 & 24 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3) ¬Seniority Protection of service of petitioner rendered in a Statutory Body coordinating with the Local Government Department of the Province in the matter of seniority Petitioner; employee of a statutory body, had opted for permanent absorption in the Government Department provided his service rendered in the statutory body was counted towards seniority etc. in terms of R.12(a), Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 Petitioner was appointed by transfer in the Government Department accordingly until further orders by a notification Validity Case of the petitioner, was covered by R.12(b), Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 which stipulated that after appointment by transfer on the request of appointee, he shall rank junior to all other persons appointed before him on regular basis Case of the petitioner, having not been duly considered by the appropriate Departmental Promotion Committee, at the time of his appointment by transfer, benefit of R.12(a), Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, , Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 could not be extended to him For the purpose of assigning ante dated seniority to the petitioner and for his absorption a summary should have been submitted to the Chief Minister, who might be competent to relax the Rules in larger public interest Case of the petitioner, however would not fall within the domain of a "hardship case" Seniority being not a vested right of a civil servant at Sr. No. l did not confer any vested right on him to invoke the doctrine of locus poenitentiae as power of rescission or recall of the earlier order was always available to the Authority passing an order Principles. In the present case the petitioner was not serving as civil servant in any Government Department or organization authorizing his appointment by transfer without any due process. He was serving in a…
🔒
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