' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the majority judgment dated 14-7- 1993 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, passed in Appeal No,226 of 1980 filed by respondent No,1 upon the latter's application for amendment of the memo of appeal, allowing the same.
2. The brief facts are that respondent No,1 filed aforesaid appeal against the seniority list circulated by the department. The above appeal was dismissed. The matter was brought before this Court in the form of Civil Appeal No,403 of 1988 with the leave of this Court by respondent No,1 which was disposed of through a judgment dated 3-6-1991, the operative portion of which reads as follows:-- "5. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the view that it would be better for determining the rights of the parties inter see that the matter is examined by the learned Service Tribunal to see as to whether the final seniority list has been issued and if that be so then determine the claim of each party in respect of the said seniority list. Therefore, this appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore for fresh decision. In the circumstances the practice are left to bear their own costs."
3. After the above remand order by this Court, it seems that a final seniority list was issued on 22- 12-1992 by the department. Respondent No,1 filed the above amendment application for assailing the same in the aforesaid pending appeal. However, the petitioner objected to the above amendment on the ground that since a fresh cause of action accrued to respondent No,1 she should first file a representation in the department and then to file a service appeal. The Chairman and one Member of the Tribunal allowed the above amendment, whereas the third Member of the Tribunal recorded his note of dissent. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. In support of the above petition, Mian Muhammad Zafar Yasin, learned ASC appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that in view of the law enunciated by this Court inter alia in the case of Falak Sher Khan and another v. Secretary to Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department and others (PLD 1989 SC 562) respondent No,1 should have filed a representation with the department and then to have filed a fresh service appeal in the Tribunal as fresh cause of action had accrued to her and, therefore, respondent No,1's above amendment application was misconceived.
5. We enquired from the learned counsel for the parties, whether the above final seniority list has altered the position of respondent No,1 vis-a-vis the petitioner as was indicated in the earlier seniority list. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not given any reply to the above query but he is unable to controvert the statement of the learned counsel for respondent No,1 caveator that the above final seniority list had affirmed the above earlier seniority list which was the subject- matter of the above appeal and which was considered by this Court in the above appeal. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that since the matter has been under litigation for nearly 14 years and keeping in view the above-quoted direction of this Court in the above judgment dated 3-6-1991 in Civil Appeal No,403 of 1988, the majority view of the Tribunal in allowing the above amendment seems to be unexceptionable as it will curtail the litigation which has been going on for such a long period.
6. In any case the present petition does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance as envisaged by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and, therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of leave. Leave is refused.