Pakistan Case Law← Search
1998 PLC (C.S.) 1043

MUHAMMAD SALEEM-II, STENOGRAPHER vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through

Citation1998 PLC (C.S.) 1043
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions Nos. 584 and 586 of 1995 Appeals Nos.271(R) and 273(R) of
Date1996-11-18
Judge(s)Irshad Hasan Khan, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui
ResultLeave refused

ORDER

' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---Both the abovementioned two petitions are filed by Muhammad Saleem-II a Stenographer of Establishment Division to call in question two separate judgments of Federal Service Tribunal dated 17-7-1995 rendered in two Service Appeals filed by him

2. In. The first 'case the petitioner's grievance before the learned Tribunal was that he was not considered for promotion as a Private Secretary (B-17). The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence before it came to the conclusion that the name of the petitioner appeared in the seniority list at serial No,16 while private respondents in the appeal were all senior to him. We have specifically asked the petitioner, who is appearing in person in the above cases, whether any person junior to him has been promoted as Private Secretary (B-17). The petitioner replied in the negative. In view of the above stated facts the learned Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as without any cause.

3. In the second petition, the petitioner's grievance before the Tribunal was that he should be granted special pay of Rs,150 instead of Rs,120 as was allowed in the case of his juniors. The learned Tribunal refused to interfere in the case on the ground that in the earlier Appeal No,463(R) of 1994 filed by the petitioner, he had prayed for grant of a special pay which was allowed to him at the rate of Rs,120 per month vide judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 1-2-1995. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that in view of the decision in the earlier appeal by the Tribunal where under the petitioner was allowed only Rs,120 as a special pay instead of Rs,150 as claimed by him, it was not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the same matter in the appeal again before the learned Tribunal. The judgment of the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and no case is made out for interference by us.

' The petitions are accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.

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