Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASLAM GONDAL VS Respondent: INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ISLAMABAD,Muhammad Nawaz
1999 P L C (C
1999 P L C (C.S.) 644
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Muhammad Ismail, Roshan Ali Mangi and Noor Muhammad Magsi, Members
MUHAMMAD ASLAM GONDAL
Versus
INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and others
Appeal No. 496‑R of 1995, decided on 3rd March, 1996.
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Competence‑‑‑Res judicata, principle of‑‑‑Application‑ Appeal previously filed by appellant/civil servant on same cause, was dismissed in limine by Service Tribunal on ground of limitation‑‑‑Fresh appeal which was hit by principle of res judicata, was not competent and was liable to be dismissed on that ground.
Appellant in person.
Shah Jehan Qureshi, Counsel for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Muhammad Nawaz, D.S.P. (Legal), D.R.
Date of hearing: 31st January, 1996.
JUDGMENT
ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).‑‑‑The competent Authority issued a Seniority list of the U.D.Cs. on 30‑7‑1995, inviting objections if any from the concerned persons so as to reach it within fortnight positively. Accordingly, the appellant who is at present working as U.D.C. in the office of Inspector‑General of Police, Islamabad, also submitted his objections against the said list on 13‑8‑1995. In his objections he pleaded that his inter se seniority as L.D.C. (now U.D.C.) might be refixed according to the order of merit under prescribed Ministerial Staff (Range/Hqs) Rules, 1964, rather than on the basis of date of joining the services as L.D.C. However. he was not responded to, even after the statutory period of 90 days. He has then filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
2. While going through the comments, filed on behalf of the private respondents, we found that the appellant had filed an Appeal No. 328(R) of 1995 previously for the same cause which was dismissed in limine by the Tribunal on the ground of time limitation vide order dated 10‑9‑1995.
3. Under the circumstances, it has become incompetent as it is hit by the principle of res judicata which has been pointed out and rightly by the respondents in their preliminary objections so filed. Under the circumstances, without going into the merit of appeal we dismiss the same being incompetent under the law with no order as to costs.
4. Parties be informed.
H.B.T./255/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.