Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAEED RABBANI VS Respondent: DIRECTOR-GENERAL, 1, LEATHER INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION, ISLAMABADHonorable Justice ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM,Hafiz SA. Rehman
1994 P L C (C
1994 P L C (C.S.) 882
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Present: Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim, Chairman, Rana Rifat Saeed and M. Ilyas Lodhi, Members
SAEED RABBANI
Versus
DIRECTOR‑GENERAL LEATHER INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION, ISLAMABAD and another
Appeal No. 203(R) of 1992, decided on 13th January, 1994.
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Finance Division Memorandum No. 1/1/83‑R/II, dated 22‑2‑1983 read with O.M. 25‑4‑1988‑‑‑'Twenty‑five percent posts of Assistants (B‑11) in the attached departments were to be placed in Selection Grade (B‑15) with effect from 1‑4‑1988‑‑‑Civil servant being in such category sought benefit of the Memorandum dated 22‑2‑1983 but his request was declined ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Appellant being civil servant and his case being covered by the said memorandum, Department should have considered his case for grant of such benefit‑‑‑Department was directed to consider civil servant's case on merits, according to law.
Appellant in person.
Hafiz SA. Rehman, Standing Counsel for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 13th January 1994.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑The appellant Mr. Saeed Rabbani was appointed as Assistant (B‑11) by order dated 14th May, 1975 in the Leather Industry Development Organisation under the Ministry of Industries. Presently, he is on deputation with the National Housing Authority, Islamabad, since 11th November, 1987. He made a representation on 11‑9‑1989 to the Director‑General, Leather Industry Development Organisation (LIDO) for grant of Selection Grade Scale‑15 on the basis of Finance Division's Office Memorandum No. F.1/3/IMP.II/88, dated 25‑4‑1988 but it was declined on the ground that LIDO was an autonomous body and that benefit was not permissible to its employees. He made appeal to the Secretary, Ministry of Industries which was turned down vide letter dated 31‑3‑1990 as the Ministry of Finance did not agree to extend this benefit to the employees of the LIDO, and this decision was conveyed to the appellant vide letter dated 16‑4‑1992 by the department where he is working. He then filed this appeal.
2. This appeal was dismissed in limine by the Tribunal by Judgment dated 30‑7‑1992 holding' that the employees of the Leather Industry Development Organisation are not civil servants and thus are not amenable to jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The appellant challenged the decision of the Tribunal by filing Civil Appeal No. 696 of 1992 in the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its Judgment dated 23‑10‑1993 held that employees of LIDO are civil servants and the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal was competent. The judgment of Tribunal was set aside and case was remanded. On remand of the case, the appeal was admitted for regular hearing by an order dated 2‑12‑1993 and today it has come up for regular hearing.
3.The appellant argued that under the Finance Division Office Memorandum No. 1/1/83‑R/VI, dated 22‑2‑1983, read with O.M. dated 25‑4‑1988, 25% posts of Assistants (B‑11) in the Attached Departments were to be placed in Selection Grade (B‑15), with effect from 1‑4‑1988, and as such he was also entitled to this benefit.
4. Mr. Hafiz SA. Rehman, learned Standing Counsel submitted that he has no instructions from the department and no body contacted him. The departmental representative stated that due to the objection by the Finance Division, selection grade was not allowed to the appellant. Mr. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, at our request assisted and submitted that in view of the Supreme Court's Judgment, the appellant is a civil servant and the respondent department shall have to consider the case 'of the appellant for grant of Selection Grade B‑15, according to the provisions contained in Office Memorandum dated 22‑2‑1983 read with O.M. dated 25‑4‑1988. In view of the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, we direct the respondent‑Department to consider the case of the appellant on I merits, according to law, and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
A.A./915/Sr.F. Order accordingly.