Pakistan Case Law← Search
1994 SCMR 543

ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others

Citation1994 SCMR 543
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 348 of 1993 Appeal No, 36-R of 1993
Date1993-11-30
Judge(s)Fazal Ilahi Khan, Manzoor Hussain Sial
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Abdul Hamid Khan, petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal, against judgment dated 22-4-1993, of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") whereby his appeal against order dated 9-5-1992, placing Mr. Shaheen Iqbal respondent No,4, senior to him by the departmental authority, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner claims that he was selected/appointed as A.W.M. (Auxiliary) as trainee on 18-7- 1974, and his service was regularised on 8-9-1976, he ranked senior to respondent No,4 who was appointed as Assistant Manager (PR) on 19-8-1976, because the post of A.W.M. (P.R.) was not equivalent to the post of A.W.M. (Auxiliary) held by him.

3. The perusal of the impugned order, however, shows that this point stood already resolved on 23- 5-1990, in Appeal No,72(R)/1989, filed by respondent No,4 against the petitioner and others before the Tribunal, wherein it was held that Assistant Works Manager (Auxiliary) included Assistant Manager (P.R.) in the cadre and the seniority of respondent No,4 to be reckoned from the date of his appointment as Assistant Manager (P.R.) viz 19-8-1976 and not on 14-7-1981, the date when he was transferred to the anxillary cadre. This decision was maintained by this Court in Appeal No,1495 of 1990 on 23-9-1992.

4. The petitioner appears to have not challenged seniority list issued by the department on 15-6- 1980, wherein Shaheen Iqbal, respondent was shown senior to him with his date of appointment as 19-8-1976, and date of the appointment of the petitioner as 8-9-1976. On a question, as to why that seniority list was not challenged by him, the petitioner stated that he was not aware of that seniority list, as it was not served upon him. This explanation at this stage, hardly sounds plausible.

5. In our view, this is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal. In consequence, this petition fails and is dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search