ABDUL RAZZAO A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---By way of this appeal, appellant, Mr. Amjad Iqbal, Office Superintendent (B-16) in the office of the Chief Commissioner, ICT, Islamabad, seeks determination of his seniority as Assistant (B-11) over respondents 4 and 5, namely M/s. Muhammad Saleem and Abdul Ghaffar.
2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant joined as UDC on 7-4-1981 in the Office of the Chief Commissioner, ICT. He was promoted as Assistant (B-11) with effect from 14-5-1984 and was granted Selection Grade B-15 with effect from 7-2-1989. Subsequently he was promoted as Office Superintendent (B-16) with effect from 18-2-1991. Respondent No. 4, Mr. Muhammad Saleem was appointed as Assistant (B-11) with effect from 1-2-1984 by initial appointment. Respondent No. 5, Mr. Abdul Ghaffar was appointed as Assistant (B-11) by direct recruitment. A final seniority list of Assistants was circulated vide letter dated 29-5-1989 wherein the appellant was shown senior to respondents 4 and 5, being at S.No. 5 of that list. The respondents 4 and 5 challenged the said list by filing Appeals Nos. 403(R)/89 and 404(R)/89 respectively but both the appeals were dismissed on the point of maintainability alongwith two other connected appeals bearing Nos. 402(R)/89 and 405(R)/89 filed by M/s. Bashir Ahmad and Syed Abrar Hussain, by common judgment dated 22-8- 1990. M/s. Bashir Ahmed and Syed Abrar Hussain filed Civil Appeal No. 1249/90 and 1248/90 respectively. Their appeals were accepted and the judgment of the Tribunal was set aside and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for decision on merits. In pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court, Appeals Nos. 402 and 405(R)/89 were reheard and the Tribunal allowed both the appeals by order dated 8-2-1993 while Appeals Nos. 403(R)/89 and 404(R)/89 of respondents 4 and 5 were dismissed on the ground that they had not challenged the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the Supreme Court and were not party before the Supreme Court and when the cases were remanded to this Tribunal, and as such their appeals could not be reopened. In pursuance of the decision of the Tribunal in the Appeals Nos. 402 and 405(R)/89, the respondent-Department issued a final seniority list of Assistants vide letter dated 14-6-1993, wherein the appellant was placed at S.No. 7 and respondents 4 and 5 were placed above the appellant at S.Nos. 5 and 6 respectively. He filed a representation on 24-6-1993 to the Secretary, Ministry of Interior which remained unresponded and after the expiry of 90 days, he filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 21-10-1993.
3. Mr. Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and argued that in the earlier seniority list issued in 1989, the appellant was placed above the respondents 4 and 5, against which both the respondents 4 and 5 filed appeals before this Tribunal and appellant was a party, which were dismissed, and as such, the seniority position assigned to all of them in the year 1989 attained finality and could not be reversed.
4. Respondents 4 arid 5 appeared in person and argued that they were appointed as Assistants much earlier than the appellant and under the rules they were to reckon senior to the appellant in the cadre of Assistant. It was argued that their seniority was determined in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal.
5. Mr. Hifzur Rahman, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Mr. Hafiz SA. Rahman, the Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department argued that seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis respondents 4 and 5 has been determined in the light of the decision of the Tribunal delivered in Appeals Nos. 402 and 405(R)/89 filed by M/s. Bashir Ahmed and Syed Abrar Hussain.
6. In this appeal, the appellant has impugned the final seniority list of Assistants circulated under Memorandum dated 14-6-1993, which has been prepared in pursuance of the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No.402(R)/89. According to the submissions of the parties, the appellant was appointed as UDC (B-71 with effect from 7-4-1981 and was promoted as Assistant (B-11) with effect from 14-5-1984. Respondents 4 and 5, M/s. Muhammad Saleem and Abdul Ghaffar were appointed as Assistants directly with effect from 1-2-1984 and 1-3-1984 respectively. Thus, it is clear that respondents 4 and 5 were recruited earlier than the appellant as Assistant when appellant was UDC. The question of inter se of the direct recruits and the promotees of the same year was adjudicated upon by this Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 402 and 405(R)/89 filed by M/s. Bashir Ahmed and Syed Abrar Hussain, respectively, and this Tribunal by common judgment dated 8-2-1993, after interpreting the relevant rules and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in PLD 1993 SC 10, held that the direct recruits shall rank senior to the promotees of the same year. The private respondents in those appeals went to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Tribunal and filed Civil Petitions Nos. 182 and 188 of 1993, but leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court observing as under: "The learned Tribunal after considering the respective dates of entry of the petitioner and respondents Bashir Ahmad and Syed Abrar Hussain in the service as Assistant, held that Bashir Ahmad and Syed Abrar Hussain shall rank senior to petitioner and restored the seniority originally assigned to them in the seniority list. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner; we do not find the above cases fit for grant of leave as the learned Tribunal has passed substantially a just order in the circumstances of the case."
Therefore, the decision of this Tribunal with regard to determination of the Assistants working in the ICT attained finality and the impugned seniority list has been prepared in pursuance of the law laid down by this Tribunal and is unexceptionable as decision of Tribunal was upheld by Supreme Court on legal points.
7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that appeals filed by the respondents 4 and 5 were dismissed by this Tribunal in which the appellant, Mr. Amjad Iqbal was a respondent, and as such, they cannot get seniority over the appellant. We are sorry, we do not subscribe to this view as the appeals filed by the respondents 4 and 5 before this Tribunal in first round of litigation were not disposed of on merits but on point of law as being incompetent. The contention of the respondents 4 and 5 is that they had no means to go in appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision of this Tribunal and on remand of the other two connected appeals on identical points, the decisions in those appeals mutatis mutandis shall be applicable to their cases. On remand of the cases of M/s. Bashir Ahmed and Syed Abrar Hussain, on identical points of law, this Tribunal thrashed out the entire cases of the appellants as well as the respondents therein and gave a decision on the point of law and on merits, and that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. It was thereafter that the respondent-Department reviewed the cases of the appellants and the respondents therein and under section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 prepared a final seniority list. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the respondents 4 and 5 did not file appeals before the Supreme Court and the matter was not reopened by the Tribunal, they cannot get the benefit of the judgment in the cases of M/s. Bashir Ahmed and Syed Abrar Hussain. The matter has finally been settled by the Supreme Court by enunciating the law for determination of seniority of the Assistants in the ICT Administration and under Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all other Courts in Pakistan, and respondents 4 and 5 in all fairness, cannot be made to suffer on the plea of technical objection raised by the appellant, when their cases are identical to those of M/s. Bashir Ahmed and Syed Abrar Hussain and respondents got seniority on appellant on new cause of action filed departmental appeal and before this Tribunal with regard to final seniority list issued on 14-6-1993. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned seniority list circulated under Memo, dated 14-6-1993 has correctly been prepared and there is no legal infirmity in the seniority list because there should be no disparity and discrimination in the same organisation on the point of law and facts.
8. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in appeal and is accordingly dismissed.