Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2006 P L C (C

2006 P L C (C.S.) 1119

[Federal Service Tribunal]

Before Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members

BASHIR AHMAD

Versus

WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and 57 others

Appeal No.583(L)/(C.S.) of 2000, decided on 8th September, 2004.

Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---

----S.22---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4---Selection grade---Claim for---Right of appeal---Appellant in his appeal had prayed for grant of Selection Grade in BPS-16 to himself and pro forma respondents---Validity---Appellant could not pray for grant of relief to pro forma respondents---Rules required that every aggrieved employee should file his own appeal---Pro forma respondents should have filed independent appeals---If the prayer made by appellant for grant of relief to pro forma respondents besides himself was allowed, then rules framed under Service Tribunals Act, 1973 would be rendered ineffective---Prayer of appellant in appeal was generalized in nature---Such a prayer could not be made---Appellant was required to give specific date from which he wanted relief---Appellant had stated that employees evenly placed with him including pro forma respondents were entitled to benefit of judgment of Service Tribunal---Legal position that benefit of judgment of Service Tribunal and judgment of apex Court had to be extended to non-litigating employees evenly placed with successful litigants could not be denied---If pro forma respondents found that appellant had been given a certain treatment under the light of present judgment, they could approach respondent Authority for same relief.

Nazeer Ahmad Quraishee for Appellant.

Jalil-ur-Rehman, Deputy Director T.P.S. as departmental reposesentatine for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 8th September, 2004.

JUDGMENT

MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).---Appellant Bashir Ahmad, Attendant in Thermal Power Station, Muzaffargarh has filed the present appeal for grant of Selection Grade in BPS.16. He has requested that this grade be also allowed to the pro forma respondents. The prayer clause is reproduced as under:--

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Service Appeal may very graciously be accepted and the Defending Respondents may kindly be ordered to allow the appellant and the Pro forma Respondents placement/Selection Grade BPS-16 from the date of vacancies falling due from a period of about a decade."

2. The respondents have stated in their written statement that Selection Grade has been allowed to the employees of WAPDA from the date of occurrence of vacancies on the recommendations of Selection Board in pursuance of Director Finance's Office Order dated 9-1-1998. Today a copy of the Office Order No.3721-26, dated 30-3-2001 has been produced by which the appellant has been granted Selection Grade w.e.f. 20-2-1995. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was entitled to Selection Grade w.e.f. 2-12-1992 with the pro forma respondents. He has requested that Selection Grade be allowed to the appellant and to the pro forma respondents w.e.f. 2/12/1992.

3. The present appeal has been filed by Bashir Ahmad Appellant. He cannot pray for grant of relief to the pro forma respondents. The rules require that every aggrieved employee should file his own appeal. The pro forma respondents should have filed independent appeals. If the prayer made by the appellant for grant of relief to pro forma respondents besides himself is allowed then the rules framed under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 shall be rendered ineffective.

4. The appellant had not prayed in his appeal for grant of Selection, Grade w.e.f. 2-12-1992. His prayer in appeal was generalized in nature. Such a prayer cannot be made. The appellant was required to give a specific date from which he wanted relief. In any case we leave it to the respondents to look into this claim of the appellant that since vacancies were available in Selection Grade on 2-12-1992, therefore, he was entitled to that grade from the said date.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that employees evenly placed with the appellant including the pro forma respondents are entitled to the benefit of the judgment of this Tribunal. There is no denying the legal position that benefit of judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and of the judgment of the apex Court has to be extended to non-litigating employees evenly placed with the successful litigants. If the pro forma respondents find that the appellant has been given a certain treatment under the light of the present judgment they may approach the Authority for the same relief.

6. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.

H.B.T./112/FST Order accordingly.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant