This order shall dispose of Writ Petition No. 8949 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 9050 of 2010 and Writ Petition No. 7674 of 2010.
2. The petitioners were inducted into police service as Inspectors of Police through the Punjab Public Service Commission w.e.f. 29.6.1998. The grievance of the petitioners is that the seniority list prepared by the respondents has not been formulated according to the judgment passed by the Punjab Public Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeals No. 239/06, 917/06. 1961 to 1967, 1969, 1970, 3113, 2115, 2116 and 1980 of 2005, titled "Raza Safdar Kazmi and others us. Shahzada Saleem and others".
According to the petitioners they are entitled to promotion as their case is at par with the case of persons whose appeals were decided by the learned Punjab Services Tribunal and the judgment was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No. 2017 to 2031 of 2007 titled "Shahzada Saleem and others us. Raza Safdar Kazrni and others". It is further maintained that in case of "Hameed Akhtar Niazi us. Secretary Establishment" (1996 SCM R 1185), it has been established that no distinction can be made between the persons who assail an order and are given a judgment in their favour and between the persons who have not assailed the same but were equally effected by the same order. The rational of above judgment was that since the order is declared illegal, therefore, it is nullity and does not operate against any other employees who may be effected by the same.
3. The learned Law Officer has vehemently opposed this petition and maintained that the impugned seniority list was formulated in accordance with the directions approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were passed in the above said case by the Hon'ble Tribunal. However, he has not been able to show that the same was strictly in accordance with the rules as the list suffers from serious infirmities and it includes the persons who were junior to the petitioners and they are shown as seniors from them. In Raza Safdar Kazmi's case the Hon'ble Tribunal laid down the following criteria for promotion:--
1. "It will grant personal hearing to appellants (directly, recruited Police Inspectors) whose original dates of appointment as Police Inspector were likely to be rendered meaningless in consequence of issuance of impugned seniority lists and will record reasons including any specific judgment of the Tribunal in favour of the respondents if the authority thought that ante-dation of promotions was justified.
2. Grant of ante-dated confirmation to respondents as Inspector etc. shall not be considered to have automatically conferred right of promotion upon any of the private respondents unless his case for promotion from back date was considered on merits and an opportunity was also given to those likely to be affected in seniority, to place their case before the said authority in each such case.
3. None of the private respondent shall be considered to have been promoted as DSP on regular basis and they shall not be allowed seniority as DSP unless they had completed atleast seven years working as police Inspectors in terms of notification dated 19.12.2001 and thereafter when they had completed seven years' experience, they will get seniority as such from the date of regular promotion.
4. Private respondents who had been allowed promotion as DSP without resolving the dispute of seniority shall be considered to be working as such in their won pay scale (liable to reversion) and their regular promotion shall be subject to settlement of dispute of seniority viz-a-viz appellants in the first instance."
4. The said criteria was fully approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Shahzada Saleem and others us. Raza Safdar Kazmi and others"; therefore, no departure can be made from the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Tribunal. It goes without saying that once a judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court then undoubtedly it should be treated as judgment of the Supreme Court and authorities are under Constitutional obligations to implement the same. Any attempt to wriggle out of the judgment by making crafty invasion and in roads therein has serious consequences, therefore, it is in the interest of justice as well as in all propriety that the judgment of the superior Courts must not be taken lightly and must be implemented in letter and spirit.
5. With the above observations these petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to formulate the seniority list strictly in accordance with the criteria laid down by the superior Courts.
However, no order for cost is being passed.