Moazzam Hayat, Member.--With this judgment we shall decide Appeals No, 858(R)CS/2011 and 859(R)CS/2011 filed by appellants Masood Anjum and Muhammad Jamil respectively. The facts of both the appeals are identical and same relief is prayed for in both of them, therefore, we are deciding them with this judgment.
2. Both the appellants were appointed as ASPO in BS-11 on 01.11.1994 and 31.07.1994 respectively.
Their posts were upgraded to BS-14. The Private Respondents No,3&4 were in the cadre of head clerks and town inspectors(BS-9). They too were upgraded as ASPOs. The upgradation was made in pursuance of order of Postal Services Corporation, Islamabad w,e,f, 01.07.1994. The order was contained in memo. dated 23.04.1995. Thus this is a dispute between the Assistant Superintendents (Field) and Assistant Superintendents (Office). It may be mentioned here that the upgradation of both the cadres was made w,e,f, 01.07.1994. It is maintained by the appellants that they are senior to the private respondents and it is for that relief that they have filed the present appeals. They had also succeeded to get a direction, on their MPs, that no adverse order shall be passed against them.
3. Both the appeals and the MP's have been resisted by the respondents. An affidavit is submitted in both the appeals that stay order had not been issued by the Court in the presence of the respondents or their counsel. On merits, it is stated that both the cadres had been upgraded w,e,f, 01.07.1994 vide memo. dated 23.04.1995 and such upgradation had attained finality as a consequence of which a combined seniority list had been published under the directions of the FST contained in its judgment dated 25.06.1995 passed in Appeals No, 54 & 126 to 129(L)/95. An objection has thus been taken that the appeals are hopelessly time barred.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The admitted position is that the appellants and private Respondents No, 3 & 4 were in lower cadre but were upgraded to BS-14 and were re-designated as Assistant Superintendents. This upgradation was made as far back as 1st July, 1994. It has thus attained finality and cannot be repaginated after about 16 years.
6. The department had issued separate seniority lists of both the cadres. It was on the appeals filed by the Assistant Superintendents (field) (Appeals No, 54, 126 to 129(L)/95) that a direction was issued by the FST on 25.06.1995 for preparation of a combined seniority list. This judgment of the FST was up held by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 17.05.2001 passed in Appeal Nos, 1253 to 1257/95. Since combined seniority list had been prepared under the direction of FST, confirmed by the Apex Court, therefore, the appellants are precluded from reagitating the matter. The principle of resjudicata as contained in Section 11 CPC shall operate against them. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the present appellants were not party in the above mentioned litigation, therefore, the judgments given in that litigation were not binding on them. This argument is misconceived and is violative of the principle of resjudicata. The judgment given by a Tribunal or a Court of law is binding not only on the parties but also on their successors in interest.
In explanation (vi) to Section 11 it is clearly stated that where persons litigate bonafide in respect of public, right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all person interested in such right shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigated. It was the cadre of the appellants that had instituted their grievance in the FST. They being successors in interest, are, therefore, precluded from making a different claim.
8. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeals which are hereby dismissed along with MPs.
9. There shall be no order as to costs. parties shall be informed.