Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL FATEH BHUTTO VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF SINDH
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 834
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ
ABDUL FATEH BHUTTO
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and others
Civil Petition No.491‑K of 2001, decided on 26th November, 2001.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22‑5‑2001 passed by Sindh Services Tribunal, Karachi in Appeal No.141/98).
Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973)‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 8 & 24‑‑‑Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S.4‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Civil servant was working in executive cadre of Police Department‑‑‑After his change in cadre to Anti‑Corruption Department, civil servant was placed at the bottom of seniority list of Inspectors on the date of joining it‑‑‑Civil servant's case was decided by Authority according to policy and rules, and was not . considered to be a case of hardship‑‑‑No case for‑discrimination was made out‑‑‑Civil r servant was placed at the bottom of seniority list of Inspectors on his joining in 1996, but he agitated his grievance in 1999 by filing appeal, which was time‑barred‑‑‑Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal in circumstances.
Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 26th November, 2001.
JUDGMENT
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.‑‑‑This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22‑5‑2001 passed by learned Sindh Service Tribunal at Karachi, whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed.
Facts of the case are not necessary to be narrated here as the same have been stated in the impugned judgment.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents Nos.4 to 7 have been given seniority above him which have been reckoned from the date of appointment/promotion in exercise of powers conferred by section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 while he has been refused, which amounted to discrimination consequently he was entitled to have seniority counted from the date of his appointment thereby he would become senior to said respondents.
We do not find substance and merit in the said contention. The petitioner was working in the executive cadre of Sindh Police and after his change in cadre to Anti‑Corruption Establishment he was placed at the bottom of seniority of Inspectors on the date of joining Anti‑Corruption Establishment. His case was decided as per policy and rules. His case was considered not to be a case or hardship by the Authority concerned. We find that no case for discrimination is made out considering also the fact that he was placed at the bottom of the seniority, list of the Inspectors on his joining in 1996 whereas he agitated his grievance in 1999 by filing the appeal which on the face of record was time‑barred.
In the circumstances there is no merit in this petition consequently leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.
S.A.K./A‑180/S Petition dismissed.