SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.--Office has raised objection that these petitions are the-barred inasmuch as C.P.480 of 1995, C.P.499 of 1995 and C.P. 500 of 1995 by 421 days, C.P. 501 of 1995 by 841 days and C.P. 498 of 1995 by 358 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in these petitions petitioner is common and his grievance is that he was not joined as necessary party in the proceedings of service appeals which were filed by the respondents named therein and allowed by confirmation of seniority of DSPs in their favour with retrospective effect on account of acts of gallantry and extraordinary devotion to duty as envisaged in the circular of I.-G. Police, dated 8-6- 1973. It is further submitted that petitioner was due for promotion on 1-7-1980 but in C.P. 499 of 1995, respondent No.5 Zulfiqar Ahmad Malik has been given by Service Tribunal anti-dated confirmation from 1-7-1984 to 16-1-1978 with the jump of six and half years with the result that seniority of the petitioner and his opportunity of promotion are seriously jeopardized.
2. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents supporting impugned decisions of the Service Tribunal has submitted that non-joining of petitioner as a party before the Service Tribunal is not material for the reason that decision of Service Tribunal is judgment in personam and not judgment in rem hence is not binding on him and he can file departmental appeal when seniority list is published and if his grievance is not redressed then can file service appeal before the Service Tribunal. In this context Mr. Samdani, counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Notification dated 28-5-1995 (at page 75 of paper-book of C.P.499 of 1995), in which it is mentioned specifically that seniority of DSP Zulfiqar Ahmad is settled in pursuance of the Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment dated 14-3-1995, hence departmental proceedings and availing remedy before the Service Tribunal would not serve any useful purpose. In the circumstances claim is reiterated that petitioner should have been joined in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal as necessary party.
3. We grant leave to examine firstly whether it was necessary to join the petitioner as necessary party in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal and secondly whether decisions of Service Tribunal impugned before us are judgments in rem or in personam. We leave open question of limitation to be determined at the the of hearing of appeals.