Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZAFAR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICEHonorable Justice ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY,Nemo
1994 P L C (C
1994 P L C (C.S.) 307
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ
ZAFAR HUSSAIN
Versus
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE and others
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 60 of 1993, decided on 28th August, 1993.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 11‑‑11‑1992 passed in Appeal No. 408/R/1992).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑‑Re‑opening of decided matter by Supreme Court‑‑‑Civil servant‑‑‑Entitlement to move‑over from specified date‑‑‑Civil servant was granted move‑over in BPS 19 with effect from 1‑12‑1987‑‑‑Civil servant claimed move‑over with effect from 1‑12‑1986 but failed to get relief in. earlier round of litigation either from the Service Tribunal or the Supreme Court‑‑ Civil servant subsequently on the basis of judgment of Supreme Court PLD 1992 SC 147 again moved his Department for ante‑dating of move‑over but to no effect‑‑‑Service Tribunal also dismissed his appeal ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Subject matter of present controversy had already been resolved against civil servant in earlier round of litigation‑‑‑Judgment pronounced by Supreme Court being final could not be reopened again‑‑‑Final judgment having been pronounced by the Supreme Court, decided matter could not be re‑examined‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 9th August, 1993.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑The
petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 11‑11‑1992.
2. The petitioner reached the maximum of BPS‑18 on 1‑12‑1985. The petitioner's case was considered by the Move‑over Committee in 1990. The Committee did not grant move‑over to him in BPS‑19 with effect from 1‑12‑1986 but granted it with effect from 1‑12‑1987. The petitioner's case is that he was entitled to move‑over in BPS‑19 with effect from 1‑12‑1987. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal after having failed to get any redress from the departmental authorities. The Service Tribunal on 20‑3‑1991 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal filed petition for leave to appeal in this Court. His petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused on 3‑7‑1991. On the basis of judgment reported in PLD 1992 SC 147 (Pakistan Railways v. Muhammad Yousaf, U.D.C.) the petitioner again moved the Secretary, Establishment Division for ante‑dating of move‑over but his request was not entertained by the Division. He filed appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
3. The petitioner has been heard in person. He has also submitted (Ajmal Mian, J) written arguments. The petitioner submitted that in accordance with the Article 189 of the Constitution a decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all other Courts in Pakistan and all executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court (Article 190). The petitioner has heavily relied upon the aforesaid judgment of this Court and submitted that a fresh cause had accrued to the petitioner as now the law has been finally settled. We see no force in his contention. The subject‑matter of the present controversy has already been resolved against the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation. The judgment pronounced by this Court was final and case cannot be reopened again. The case of the appellant was considered by the move‑over committee but he was not allowed move‑over. According to his ACRs for the years 1982‑1985 he was not considered fit for promotion. The move‑over committee had evaluated the entire record before it. As the final judgment has been pronounced by this Court, the decided matter cannot be re examined. This petition has no force and the same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
A.A./Z‑156/S Leave refused.