1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--- Gul Faraz Khan petitioner was appointed as Statistical Assistant in the Directorate of Registration w.e.f. 14-9-1974 at Mardan. He was posted to Peshawar in April, 1980. He applied through proper channel to the Deputy Director Regional Region N.-W.F.P., Peshawar for the post of Manpower Survey Officer in the Provincial Labour Department which was accepted and he was offered this post vide letter No.DL/M&E/M/166/4355, dated 21-12-1980. The petitioner sought permission to be relieved of his duties in the parent department and to join duty to his new assignment. Vide his application dated 24-12-1980 The Director-General of Registration allowed the petitioner to join his new department subject to his resignation from his post in the parent department. The petitioner did so as he had no other alternative but to resign on 3-1-1981 and joined his new department. The petitioner after having served for about an year, was again appointed as Statistical Assistant in the District Registration Office, Malakand vide order dated 21- 3-1982 of the Directorate of Labour, N.-W.F.P. And Peshawar. He was given assurance at the time of appointment that he would be given previous seniority but the same was refused to him, while promoting juniors to him, so he filed departmental appeal which was rejected vide D.G. Letter No. 6/685/82/ Admn. I dated 10-7-1986. Thereafter his appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal for counting his seniority from the date of his initial appointment amongst others, was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 28-9-1989. Hence this petition for leave to appeal by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that discriminatory treatment has been done to the petitioner as in the same department Mr. Altaf Hussain shown at Sr. No.1 of the seniority was a temporary Statistical Assistant and on his appointment in the Islamic University, being an autonomous body, was not only relieved but was also given the right of reversion to his parent office, whereas this practice was not exercised in the case of the petitioner.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we have found out that the question involved in this case is whether the Director (Admn.) has such a discretion to deny the benefit of the service rendered by the petitioner prior to his resignation, whereas such benefit had already been offered in similar circumstances, to some other individuals in the same department. This is the main point which needs further consideration of this Court. Under the circumstances, we grant leave to appeal.
4. Appeal is to be made ready on the present record, however, the parties are permitted to file additional documents, if they so desire.