Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN VS Respondent: SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
1989 P L C (C
1989 P L C (C.S.) 199
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Present: Syed Ally Madad Shah, Chairman and Misbahullah Khan, Member
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN and 128 others
Versus
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS and 2 others
Appeal No.424(R) of 1987, and Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 208 of 1987 and 98 of 1988, decided on 8th December, 1988.
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑
‑‑‑S.4‑‑Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, R.5‑‑Office Memorandum No.3/1/1967‑D.lI dated 16‑2‑1967‑‑Appeal‑‑Joint appeal‑‑Appeal before Service Tribunal has to be filed by every person separately under his own name‑ Appellants having common cause of action but belonging to separate sections of service, appeal filed by appellants jointly and signed in such haphazard manner that it could not be comprehended as to who were actual signatories thereto was dismissed.
Tanvir Bashir Ansari for Appellants.
Fazal‑i‑Hussain for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th December, 1988.
JUDGMENT
SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑This appeal has been filed by 129 employees of the Pakistan Railways. Some of them are Foremen, some are Assistant Foremen; some are Chargemen or Assistant Chargemen and some are Sub‑Engineers. The appeal is directed against an order dated 12‑11‑1985 issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) and another order dated 7‑9‑1987 issued from the Pakistan Railways Headquarters Office, Lahore, supposed to be final order. It was filed on 31‑10‑1987.
2. Since the appeal jointly filed by 129 employees is of peculiar nature, pre admission notice was issued to the respondents vide order dated 4‑11‑1987. Its admission has been resisted on behalf of the respondents on various grounds touching its, maintainability in the manner it has been filed and other pleas on merits.
3. Attention of the learned counsel for the appellants was drawn to the apparent objection whether it could be jointly filed by as many as 129 employees serving in different categories mentioned above. He has urged that there is no specific bar to the filing of a joint appeal in respect of common cause of action. According to him, the appellants are adversely affected by the order dated 12‑11‑1985 and they had made a joint departmental representation against it and a joint order dated 7‑9‑1987 was passed to carry out the original order dated 12‑11‑1985. The order dated 12‑11‑1985 is on the subject of "Removal of anomalies and rationalization of Pay Scales and Allowances of various categories of Railway employees" made by the President of Pakistan. The appellants have no grievance against the revised pay scales but they have grievance against paragraph 4 of the order, whereby consolidated allowance the employees of their categories used to draw before, was withdrawn. They made representations in groups to the Divisional Superintendent, Rawalpindi and the Chief Officer, Railway Carriage Factory, Islamabad. Implementation of paragraph 4 was stayed by order of the General Manager dated 10‑12‑1985. The stay order was vacated by order dated 7‑9‑1987. Of course, the appellants did have common cause of action, if at all any, but since they belong to separate sections of service, they could not make joint representations in view of the instructions contained in Office Memorandum No.3/1/67‑D.I1, dated 18th February, 1967 (published in ESTACODE 1983 edition at page 681). It is laid down under Rule 5 of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977 that every civil servant preferring an appeal should do so separately and in his own name. It follows, appeal before this Tribunal also has to be filed by every person separately and in his own name. It may also be observed that the memo of appeal is signed in such an haphazard manner that it cannot be comprehended as to who are the actual signatories thereto. The representations also were made in such haphazard manner. The joint appeal filed in such manner is not entertainable. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. No observations are purposely made on the merits of the case which may come in the way of the appellants in pursuing their grievances in appropriate manner.
4. Consequent to the above order, the Miscellaneous Applications Nos.208/87 and 98/88 for stay of operation of the impugned order stand dismissed.
M.Y.H./427/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.