Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MALIK MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Respondent: FEDERAL DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION ISLAMABAD
1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C.S.) 487
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Ajmal Mian, Actg. C.J., Mamoon Kazi and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ
Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM
versus
FEDERAL DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD and 42 others
Civil Petition No. 188 of 1996, decided on 16th December, 1997.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 30-1-1996 passed in Appeal No.378(R) of 1995).
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---
----S. 8---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art: 212(3)---Seniority-- Grievance against seniority list issued in 1995---Civil servant claimed that respondents appointment initially was on ad hoc basis and they were subsequently regularised, therefore, they could not be senior to him---Service Tribunal found that civil servant's own appointment was on ad hoc basis which was regularised only subsequently, therefore, he could not have any grievance in regard to regularisation of respondents; Service Tribunal had also concluded that some respondents who were also Graduate Teachers, had graduated prior to civil servant and were senior to him in service; and that civil servant's appeal was found to suffer from multifariousness ---Dismissal of appeal by Service Tribunal---Validity---Civil servant's plea that he had earlier raised similar grievance before Service Tribunal by impleading specified respondents and that case on ultimately reaching Supreme Court, was remanded for fresh decision; seniority list issued by Department in 1995 was in the same connection---Service Tribunal having not adverted to such aspect of case while dismissing civil servant's appeal, leave to appeal to Supreme Court was granted to him but only against specified respondents.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th December, 1997
ORDER
MAMOON KAZI, J. ---The petitioner claims to be Trained Graduate Teacher. He was aggrieved on account of different seniority lists issued from time to time which showed him as junior to his other colleagues. His grievance was that some of his colleagues had been appointed on ad hoc basis but their services were regularised illegally. The petitioner filed his appeal before the Service Tribunal after he had felt aggrieved by a seniority list issued in 1995. The petitioner first filed a departmental appeal and when he failed to succeed, he approached the learned Tribunal.
2. The learned Tribunal, however, dismissed the petitioner's appeal, holding that his own appointment was on ad hoc basis, which was regularised only with effect from 7-7-1977. Consequently, he could not have any grievance in regard to regularisation of the respondents, who had been similarly regularised as the petitioner prior to him. Secondly, the Tribunal was of the view that some of the other respondents, who were also Graduate Teachers, had graduated prior to the petitioner and were senior to him in service. Therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed to claim seniority over such persons. Thirdly, the petition was found to suffer from multifariousness, as different causes of action, which accrued to the petitioner from time to time had been combined in one appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
3. Although; no cavil can be found with the said findings arrived at by the Tribunal, but the petitioner's case is that he had earlier raised a similar grievance before the Tribunal by impleading respondents Nos. 38 to 43. The case, on ultimately reaching this Court, was remanded for a fresh decision. The seniority list issued by the department in 1995 was in the same connection.
4. Since the learned Tribunal has not adverted to this aspect of the case while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, leave is granted to the petitioner but only against respondents Nos.38 to 43.
A.A./M-82/S Leave granted.