Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SALEEM-II, STENOGRAPHER VS Respondent: FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C.S.) 1043
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ
MUHAMMAD SALEEM-II, STENOGRAPHER
versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division and others
Civil Petitions Nos. 584 and 586 of 1995, decided on 18th November, 1996.
(On appeal from the judgments dated 17-7-1995 and 18-7-1995 Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeals Nos.271(R) and 273(R) of 1995).
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---
----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)---Promotion-- Entitlement to promotion and specified pay---Petitioner appeared in seniority list at Serial No. 16---Petitioner admitted that none of his juniors had been promoted---Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing petitioner's appeal-- Petitioner was also claiming special pay of Rs.150 instead of Rs.120-- Service Tribunal had refused to grant relief to petitioner on the ground that in earlier appeal filed by petitioner he had claimed Rs.120 as special pay which was allowed to him---Petitioner having claimed Rs.120 per month as special pay and same having been granted to him it was not open to him to re-agitate the same matter. again---Judgment of Service Tribunal did not suffer from any infirmity so as to justify interference by Supreme Court-- Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th November, 1996.
ORDER
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---Both the abovementioned two petitions are filed by Muhammad Saleem-II a Stenographer of Establishment Division to call in question two separate judgments of Federal Service Tribunal dated 17-7-1995 rendered in two Service Appeals filed by him.
2. In the first 'case the petitioner's grievance before the learned Tribunal was that he was not considered for promotion as a Private Secretary (B-17). The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence before it came to the conclusion that the name of the petitioner appeared in the seniority list at serial No. 16 while private respondents in the appeal were all senior to him. We have specifically asked the petitioner, who is appearing in person in the above cases, whether any person junior to him has been promoted as Private secretary (B-17). The petitioner replied in the negative. In view of the above stated facts the learned Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as without any cause.
3. In the second petition, the petitioner's grievance before the Tribunal was that he should be granted special pay of Rs.150 instead of Rs.120 as was allowed in the case of his juniors. The learned Tribunal refused to interfere m the case on the ground that in the earlier Appeal No.463(R) of 1994 filed by the petitioner, he had prayed for grant of a special pay which was allowed to him at the rate of Rs.120 per month vide judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 1-2-1995. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that in view of the decision in the earlier appeal by the Tribunal whereunder the petitioner was allowed only Rs.120 as a special pay instead of Rs.150 as claimed by him, it was not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the same matter in the appeal again before the learned Tribunal. The judgment of the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and no case is made out for interference by us.
The petitions are accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
A.A./M-135/S Leave refused.