' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--The petitioner joined the Central Excise and Land Customs Department as an Inspector on 15-8-1952. He was promoted as Deputy Superintendent and Superintendent retrospectively with effect from 20-2-1959 and 21-12-1970 respectively vide letter dated 23-4-1981. The seniority list of the Superintendents was revised on 1-10-1972 and the petitioner was at Serial No, 70 but in line of promotion he was at No,10. The petitioner on his appointment as Assistant Collector on 3-1-1982 submitted a representation for correcting his date of induction into the Customs-Excise Group in accordance with the formula laid down in S.R.O.
597(K) dated 18-12-1959. As he failed to get any reply, he submitted a departmental appeal on 24- 5-1983 and then submitted an appeal to the Federal Service Tribunal on 24-9-1983. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as being time-barred. The review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. In the meantime, the respondent No,2 issued a seniority list on 8-11-1984 wherein his name had been shown at serial No,
32. On the basis of this seniority list and considering that the senioirty being a substantive right had given a fresh cause of action to him, submitted a departmental appeal on 11-12-1984 requesting the respondent No,1 to correct his date of induction into the Customs and Excise Group. Having failed to get any relief from the department, he challenged it before the Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
' The operative part of the judgment of the Fedeal Service Tribunal reads as hereunder:-- "We have considered the arguments advanced by both the sides. The issue of limitation is taken up first. The counsel for the appellant has stated that the senioirty list issued on 8-11-1984 did not mention his seniority correctly and as such had given him a fresh cause of action. It has been noted that in Appeal No, 185(R) of 1983 the prayer of the appellant was that he was entitled to promotion with effect from 28-11-1979 as Assistant Collector and was entitled to all the monetary and other benefits of promotion. The same prayer has been made in the present appeal. Issuance of a seniority list subsequent to dismissal of appeal of the appellant does not give him any fresh cause of action. His cause of grievance was the notification by which his date of promotion was shown as 21-1-1982. On that grievance his appeal was rejected as time-barred."
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first appeal was not decided on merits, therefore, the question of res judicata did not arise in the second appeal. Fresh cause of action had accrued to the petitioner after publication of the seniority list. He has referred to Muhammad Ayub Qureshi v. Chairman, WAPDA PLC 1984 (C.S.) 133.
' Leave is granted.
' The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire.