Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DR. ROOHI SAEED VS Respondent: SHEIKH ZAYED HOSPITAL AND POST GRADUATE MEDICAL INSTITUTEHonorable Justice MOAZZAM HAYATMuhammad Hussain Awan,Imran Aziz Khan
2006 P L C (C
2006 P L C (C.S.) 1151
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members
DR. ROOHI SAEED
Versus
SHEIKH ZAYED HOSPITAL AND POST GRADUATE MEDICAL INSTITUTE through The Board of Trustees, Lahore and 3 others
Appeal No.693(L)(C.E) of 2000, decided on 1st October, 2004.
(a) Civil service---
----Appointment of current charge basis---Appointment on current charge basis was not a promotion---Civil servant who was appointed on a higher post on current charge basis would continue to be in his own grade till he was promoted on regular basis.
(b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----S. 4---Proviso (b)---Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S.8---Seniority---Appeal---Maintainability---Appellant in prayer clause of appeal had not prayed for promotion and her claim was that order by which respondent was declared senior to her be set aside being illegal---Appeal could be filed before Service Tribunal for such relief---Dispute being relating to seniority of appellant, Service Tribunal was the only forum wherein such question could be finally and conclusively decided---Appeal filed by appellant was maintainable.
(c) Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993---
----R.4---Seniority on appointment by transfer---Seniority of civil servant in transferee department would be reckoned from the date of his transfer.
2003 SCMR 333 ref.
(d) Administration of justice---
----Every person, of whatever status he was and whatever religion/faith he professed, was duty bound to do justice to all---Government Departments particularly required to impart justice to their employees so that they could not enter into litigation and it was not the function of the Courts alone to administer justice---Timely decisions on merits by, respective Department, could definitely help in reducing litigation.
Muhammad Hussain Awan for Appellant.
Imran Aziz Khan for Respondents Nos. 1, 3 & 4.
Sher Zaman for Respondent No.5.
Date of hearing: 1st October, 2004.