IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---Through this single judgment, we propose to decide the titled Civil Petitions as identical questions of law have been raised therein.
2. Leave to appeal is sought against a judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 01.02.2017. Through the impugned judgment, various appeals filed by the Respondents have been allowed in the following terms:- "The respondents are directed to grant time scale placement in BS-18 to the appellants from the dates on which they had completed ten years' service in BS-17 in terms of the aforesaid rules. By so calculating the service rendered by the appellants on work-charge basis will be counted. Resultantly and consequently the appellants will also be entitled to grant of move- over in BS-19 in accordance with the relevant rules. The process shall preferably be completed within a period of three months."
3. The controversy revolves around rule 61C(1) of Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Scientific Officers Service Rules, 1980. For ease of reference, the said rule is reproduced below:- "A holder of a post in NPS-17 in the Service who has not been. promoted due to non-availability of vacancy in his cadre will be placed in grade 18 after 10 years of service provided he has passed Departmental Professional Examination if any, prescribed for his cadre, and is considered suitable for promotion to that grade by the Selection Board."
On the strength of the above rule, some of the employees of the petitioner-department filed appeals before the Service Tribunal. The appeals were accepted, vide judgment dated 29.07.2008 and the appellants therein were directed to be granted time scale placement in BS-18 from the dates on which they were found to have completed 10 years of continuous service in BS-17. It was further directed that temporary, work charge or adhoc service shall be counted in calculating the 10 years of continuous service in BS-17. The judgment of the Service Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner-department before this Court. However, vide order dated 29.11.2008, the appeals were dismissed. Thereafter, review petitions were filed which also met the same fate, vide order dated 30.04.2010.
4. When the Respondents came to know about the judgments of the Service Tribunal as well as this Court, they filed departmental representations seeking the same benefit. Their representations remained undecided. However, pursuant to a direction issued by the High Court to, decide the departmental representations, the same were dismissed on 14.04.2015 and 04.01.2016, respectively.
5. Aggrieved of rejection of their appeals, the Respondents approached the Service Tribunal. It was asserted that they were entitled to be treated at par with the cases already decided. It had been held that service on work charge basis was to be included for reckoning the period of 10 years in BS-17 for placement in BS-18 and consequently move-over in BS-19. The appeals were resisted by the petitioner-department. It took the stance that the departmental representations were barred by time. Further it was urged that the cases of the Respondents were not identical with those of earlier appeals in which relief had been given by the Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 29.07.2008. The stance of the petitioner-department was not accepted by the Service Tribunal which proceeded to allow the appeals in the terms noted above.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-department has reiterated the same grounds which were urged before the Service Tribunal. He submits that appeals of the Respondents were barred by time. He maintains that where even departmental representation was barred, the appeal would also be deemed to be barred by time. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Khalil ur Rehman v. Secretary, Interior, Government of Pakistan (2002 SCM R 780) and Abdul Waheed Khan v. Federal Service Tribunal (2003 SCM R 826).
7. The learned counsel further maintains that case of the Respondents was not identical to that of the appeals decided in 2008. The Service Tribunal had therefore erred in law in recording findings in their favour.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-department at length and gone through the record. It is an admitted fact that the benefit of rule 6-C(1) ibid was granted to a number of employees by the Service Tribunal in 2008. This Court had upheld the said judgment of the Service Tribunal. The Respondents are seeking the same relief and are entitled to the same on the principle of law laid down by this Court in the cases of Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary, Establishment Division (1996 SCM R 1185) and Abdul Hameed Nasir v. National Bank of Pakistan (2003 SCM R 1030).
In the earlier judgment, this Court held as follows:- "we may observe that if the Tribunal or this Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the Civil Servants who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the above judgment be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the above litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum."
The above view was reiterated in the case of Abdul Hameed Nasir (ibid). This being the settled law, the question of limitation fades into insignificance and the argument of the learned counsel is misconceived.
9. As far as the position relating to continuous service of the Respondents is concerned, in case work charge service of the appellants is included in reckoning the period of 10 years service in BS- 17, the service of all Respondents exceeds the said period. In the judgment of the Service Tribunal of 2008, which was upheld by this Court, it was held that temporary or work charge or adhoc service shall be counted in calculating the 10 years of continuous service in BS-17. An identical prayer has been made by the Respondents and allowed by the Service Tribunal in the appeals. We do not see any point of difference or distinction between the two sets of cases and are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cases of the Respondents are not at par with the appellants in the appeals of 2008.
10.We have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any distinguishing feature in the two sets of cases. However, he has been unable to convince us that there is any distinction between the two sets of said cases. The judgment of the Service Tribunal is well reasoned and based upon principle of law finally settled by this Court and warrants no interference.
12. Even otherwise, we are not satisfied that these petitions raise a substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
13. For reasons recorded above, these petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.