1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Same judgment is impugned in these two petitions, therefore, they are being disposed of together.
2. Leave to appeal has been sought in these petitions from judgment, dated 6th July,1985, of the Central Service Tribunal; whereby the service appeal of Sarfraz Khan Jadoon respondent regarding seniority, was allowed.
3. Muhammad Yousaf Chuhan petitioner in C.P.392-R of 1985 was working as Deputy Controller in the Weights and Measures Department, a subordinate office of the Ministry of Industries, since 23rd of November,1973. This Department was abolished on 30th June,1980. Muhammad Yousaf Chauhan was declared surplus on 24-9-1979 as a result of economy-cut on the direction of the President and was absorbed on 1-4-1980 in the Ministry of Education as Senior Research Officer. Sarfraz Khan Jadoon respondent who was already working in the Ministry of Education was appointed as Research Officer in the same Ministry on 20th of January,1973, and was promoted as Senior Research Officer in B.P.S.18 on 16-4-1977. The question of seniority of both the officers, namely, Muhammad Yousaf Chauhan petitioner and Sarfraz Khan respondent when, they were working in the Ministry of Education was resolved by making reference to the Establishment Division's O.M.
4. No.2/66/79-D.III, dated 7th June, 1980. It provided that an officer rendered surplus in one Department when absorbed in another Department would carry the seniority in his original Department. Thus, by application of this Memo. Muhammad Yousaf Chauhan petitioner was declared senior to Sarfraz Khan respondent. Sarfraz Khan's representations were turned down by the Department. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which having been allowed, the Federation of Pakistan and Muhammad Yousaf Chauhan have now sought leave to appeal through these independently filed petitions.
5. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has, inter alia, contended that the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the Memo, dated 7th June,1980, was invalid as it had no statutory backing is without basis. According to him, the portfolio relating to Establishment Division was with the President on 7th June,1980, and it would be deemed to have --the approval of the President. That being so, it could not be said that there was no statutory backing for the said Memo.
6. This and other points raised in these petitions require examination. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted in both of them.
7. The operation of the impugned judgment is suspended meanwhile.