IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.- This petition has been filed for leave to appear against the judgment dated September 21, 2005 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that petitioner submitted an Appeal bearing No. 20(K)CS/04 before Federal Service Tribunal challenging the notification dated 3rd September, 2003 whereby officers junior to him were promoted from BPS-19 to 20. The Service Tribunal judgment dated October, 18, 2004 converted the supersession of the petitioner into deferment and directed to convene the meeting of CSB and consider the case for promotion from the date when his juniors have been promoted, lt seems that the case was considered and according to learned counsel promotion was declined to him for the second time on 8th August, 2005. Lt so happened that petitioner submitted an application on September 17, 2005 for implementation of judgment dated October 18, 2004. The prayer so made by the petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:- "In view of the above it is respectfully prayed that the respondent-Department may kindly be directed to comply with the orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal without any further loss of time, ln the meantime the minutes of the meeting of Central Selection Board dated 8.8.2005 may kindly be suspended, ln the alternative, the vacancy for the petitioner may not be filled to avoid multiplication of litigations."
The Service Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated September 31, 2005 disposed of this application holding that the judgment dated 18th October, 2004 has been implemented and of appellant feels aggrieved from his supersession which would constitute a fresh group and he has to i.e separate appeal for redressal of his grievance.
3. Learned counsel contended that supersession of the petitioner in pursuance of judgment dated 18th October, 2004 had taken place contrary to the observations made by the Service Tribunal.
According to them it was incumbent upon the Service Tribunal to have ensured the implementation of its judgment dated 18th October, 2004 in letter. The Service Tribunal may have not dismissed the application for implementation merely for the reasons that cause of action has not accrued to the petitioner after the deliberation of CSB.
4. On having gone through the judgment of the Tribunal dated 18th October, 2004 as well as the impugned order, we are of the opinion that once the implementation had taken place and CSB had superseded him for the reasons, which are not known to the petitioner as well, because, according to him the result has not been communicated to him so he could i.e proceedings to agitate his claim on the basis of fresh cause of action. The Federal Service Tribunal, after having exercised the jurisdiction by disposing of appeal on 18th April, 2004 had no lawful authority to look into the merits with, regard to his fresh supersession in pursuance of deliberations dated 8th August, 2005.
5. Therefore, under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Service Tribunal had rightly declined to grant relief to the petitioner.
Petition is dismissed.