Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1990 SCMR 854

HAFIZ SABAHUDDIN JAMY vs OBAIDUR REHMAN KHAN and 4 others

Citation1990 SCMR 854
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition Appeal No,426-R of 1988
Date1990-02-13
Judge(s)Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Syed Usman Ali Shah
ResultLeave granted

ORDER

ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner was senior to respondents 1 to 4. His seniority was maintained in Grades 17, 18 and 19 in the Gradation List published by the Government of Pakistan upto January, 1976. The petitioner was dismissed from service from 5-11-1976. However, he was reinstated in service with all fringe benefits of service and salary and his period of absence was treated as on duty and the arrears of his pay were duly paid to him, vide notifications date 25-8- 1977 and 6-12-1977. During the petitioner's aforesaid absence from service, the respondents 1 to 4 were promoted to Grade 20. The petitioner was promoted in Grade 20 in April 1978. However, his name was shown below the respondents. The petitioner preferred a representation before the Government. The Government turned down the representation of the petitioner maintaining the same position while promoting the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 in Grade 21. The petitioner approached the Federal Service Tribunal for placing him senior to the respondents 1 to 4. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the petitioner's case is not covered by clause B of Para.(b) at page 154 of Establishment Code which reads as hereunder:-- "(b) When in a single reference, the Selection Board/DPC are asked to recommend more than one persons and the recommendation of the Selection Board/DPC is held up in respect of one or more such persons for want of complete papers etc., or for reasons beyond the control of the persons concerned, the recommendation of the Selection Board/DPC in respect of such persons when made subsequently will be deemed to have been made on the date when the recommendation in respect of the original batch was made."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that M. Iqbal Junejo's case cited as PLD 1987 SC 247 does not apply to the case of the petitioner. The point raised by the learned counsel requires examination.

Leave is granted.

4. The appeal to be prepared on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch