Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS Respondent: MINISTRY OF INTERIORHonorable Justice RANA RIFAT SAEEDAminur Rehman Khan,Hafiz S.A. Rehman & Raja Muhammad Asghar
1994 P L C (C
1994 P L C (C.S.) 816
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Present: Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim, Chairman, S.M. Ishaq, Rana Rifat Saeed and M. Ilyas Lodhi, Members
MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 5 others
versus
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR and others
Appeals Nos. 368, 376, 380, 387, 408 and 414(R) of 1993, decided on 23rd February, 1994.
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Objection to seniority list ‑‑‑Amended seniority list had been prepared on the direction of Service Tribunal‑‑‑Amended list as prepared by the Department on the direction of Service Tribunal relating to matter in question (seniority vis‑a‑vis, direct appointees and promotees) being fair and justified did not require any interference.
1992 SCMR 72 and 1993 SCMR 2258 ref.
Aminur Rehman Khan for Appellants.
Hafiz S.A. Rehman Standing Counsel for Respondents.
Raja Muhammad Asghar for Respondents Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 14
JUDGMENT
RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER).‑‑‑The learned counsel had referred to the Seniority List of 1989, wherein primarily the appellants had peen shown senior to some of the private respondents Nos. 4 to 14, indicated s under:‑‑
Appellant Mr. Jan Muhammad
at Sl. No. 11
Appellant Mr. M. Rafiq Mirza
at Sl. No. 13
Appellant Masood Aslam Dar
at Sl. No. 15
Appellant M. Anwar
at Sl. No. 17
Appellant M. Aslam
at Sl. No. 18
Respondent 4 Ali Afsar
at Sl. No. 20
Respondent 5 Ali Ahmad
at Sl. No. 21
Respondent :6 Abdul Rehman
at Sl. No. 22
Respondent 7 M. Fayyaz Hashmi
at Sl. No. 23
Appellant M. Anis
at Sl. No. 24
Respondent 8 Altaf Hussain
at Sl. No. 26
Respondent 9 Saleem A. Alvi
at Sl. No. 27
Respondent 10 M. Asghar Jarral
at Sl. No. 28
Respondent 11 M. Akram‑I
at Sl. No. 29
Respondent 12 Manzur Naeem
at Sl. No. 30
Respondent 13 S. Munawar H. Shah
at Sl. No. 31
Respondent 14 Abdul Rashid Awan
at Sl. No. 32
In the meantime respondent No. 5, Ali Ahmed had submitted an appeal (No. 19(R)/90) which had been remanded by the Tribunal to the respondent Ministry with specific directions to take into consideration the quota share of direct and promotee Stenographers in accordance with relevant rules and then prepare the seniority for circulation/objections.
2. The Ministry had circulated Provisional Seniority List on 28‑4‑1993 and then a Final Seniority List on 3‑7‑1993, wherein the seniorities of the appellants had been reversed and private respondents shown senior, indicated as under:‑‑
Respondent No. 4 Ali Afsar.
Sl. No.6
Direct appointee
Respondent No. 5 Ali Ahmad.
7
Appellant Jan Muhammad.
9
Promotee
Appellant M. Rafiq Mirza
11
Respondent No. 6
12
Direct appointee
Respondent No. 7 M. Fayyaz Hashmi.
14‑a
Appellant Masood Aslam Dar
14‑b
Promotee
Respondent No. 8Altaf Hussain.
15‑a
Direct appointee
Respondent No. 9 Saleem Ahmad Alvi
15‑b
Respondent No: 10 M. Asghar Jarral.
16‑a
Respondent No. 11 Muhammad Akram‑I
16‑b
Direct appointee
Respondent No. 12 Manzar Naeem.
17
Respondent No.13 S. Munawar Hussain Shah.
18
Respondent No. 14 Abdul Rashid Awan.
19
Appellant Muhammad Anwar.
20
Promotee
Appellant Muhammad Aslam.
21
Appellant Muhammad Anis.
25
The above change/revision of inter se seniority positions of the appellants vis‑a‑vis private respondents had aggrieved the appellants who had made departmental representations, but these were not acceded to. Hence they submitted these instant appeals to the FST.
3. The learned counsel had stated that the change in the seniority list made by the respondent Ministry was not in accordance with the rules, Civil Servants Act, Clause VIII(2) & O.M. No.1/5/58‑ME, dated 22‑10‑1959 of Establishment Manual, Vol. III. He had also quoted judgments 1992 SCMR 72 and 1993 SCMR 2258 in his support. He had mentioned that since the appellants (being promotee Stenographers) had been promoted/appointed as Stenographers much earlier than the private respondents, they should rank senior to the private respondents 4 to 14 who were appointed later than them. Their positions with their dates of promotion vis‑a‑vis the date of direct appointees of respondents 4 to 14 were quoted as under:‑‑
Name
Date of temporary appointment/promotion
Ali Afsar (Respondent 4)
4‑3‑1976
Ali Ahmad (Respondent 5)
11‑3‑1976
Jan Muhammad (Appellant)
5‑10‑1974
M. Rafiq Mirza (Appellant)
11‑2‑1975
Abdul Rahman (Respondent 6),
8‑11‑1976
M. Fayyaz Hashmi (Respondent 7)
1‑2‑1977
Masood Aslam Dar (Appellant)
25‑5‑1975
Altaf Hussain (Respondent 8)
2‑10‑1977
Saleem Ahmad Alvi (Respondent 9)
11‑10‑1977
M. Asghar Jarral (Respondent 10)
21‑11‑1977
Muhammad Akram‑I (Respondent 11)
23‑9‑1978
Manzar Naeem (Respondent 12)
16‑8‑1979
S. Munawar Hussain Shah (Respondent 13)
17‑6‑1980
Abdul Rashid Awan (Respondent 14)
14‑1‑1981
Muhammad Anwar (Appellant)
16‑1‑1976
Muhammad Aslam (Appellant)
16‑1‑1976
Muhammad Anis (Appellant)
1‑3‑1977
Accordingly the appellants should have been placed senior and their inter se seniorities reckoned from these dates for promotion/appointment. He had emphasised that seniority list issued in 1989 was correct and it did not legally require any change at a belated stage during 1993 by the respondent Ministry. He had, therefore, requested for acceptance of the appeals and
restoration of appellants' inter se seniorities over the private respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent Ministry and the private respondents who were present had stated that as a result of remand of appeal No.19(R)/90 filed earlier by the respondent No. 5 Ali Ahmad (then appellant), the Ministry had changed the seniorities of the direct Stenographers vis- -vis the promotee Stenographers keeping in view the direct/promotion quota of appointments/promotions under the relevant rules. In fact the Ministry, after the remand of Appeal No.191(R)/90 on 14‑10‑1992 and under directions from the PST, had prepared/circulated provisional seniority list on 28‑4‑1993 and final seniority list on 3‑7‑1993. Further they had mentioned that this was partially correct that, although some of the appellants had temporarily been promoted as Stenographer (against the direct posts) earlier than the private respondents; but, since in their regular appointments/promotions as Stenographers the dates of direct appointment of the private respondents were earlier than the appellants' promotions, they were accordingly shown senior in the revised final seniority list of 3‑7‑1993. The dates of regular appointments/promotions of the respondents and appellants were given as under:‑‑
Name
Date of temporary Date of appointment/ promotion
Regular appointment against quota post
Respondent 4 (Ali Afsar) 4‑3‑1976
4‑3‑1976
Respondent 5 (Ali Ahmad)
11‑3‑1976
11‑3‑1976
Appellant (Jan Muhammad)
5-10-1974
16-9-1976
Appellant (M. Rafiq Mirza)
11-2-1975
8-10-1976
Respondent 6 (Abdul Rahman)
8-11-1976
8-11-1976
Respondent 7(M. Fayyaz Hashmi)
1-2-1977
1-2-1977
Appellant (Masood Aslam Dar)
25‑5‑1975
25‑4‑1977
Respondent 8 (Altaf Hussain)
2-10-1977
2-10-1977
Respondent 10 (M. Asghar Jarral)
21‑11‑1977
21‑11‑1977
Respondent 11(Muhammad Akram‑I)
23‑9‑1978
23‑9‑1978
Respondent 12 (Manzar Naeem)
16‑8‑1979
16‑8‑1979
Respondent 13 (S. Munawar Hussain Shah)
17‑6‑1980
17‑6‑1980
Respondent 14 (Abdul Rashid Awan)
14‑1‑1981
14‑1‑1981
Appellant (Muhammad Anwar)
16‑1‑1976
3‑5‑1981
Appellant (Muhammad Aslam)
16‑1‑1976
16‑1‑1976
Appellant (Muhammad Anis)
1‑3‑1977
22‑7‑1982
The dates of regular appointments/promotions were in fact the true picture of ``. their inter se seniorities which should be recknoned accordingly. Hence the appeals were devoid of merits and substance and these should be dismissed.
5. Under the aforementioned circumstances and after hearing the parties, we find that the seniority list of 1‑2‑1989 had been changed by the respondent's Ministry with respect to partial acceptance/remand of Appeal No. 19(R)/1990, heard on 4‑10‑1992 and judgment issued on 31‑10‑1992. We, therefore, conclude that the departmental action for circulating revised seniority list on 3‑7‑1993 was fair and justified and it does not require any interference. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed with, no order for costs. Parties be informed.
A.A./932/Sr.F Appeals dismissed.