Find a Lawyer

Case No. 125 of 1974, decided on 8th November 1974.

‑‑R. 1(2)‑‑Joint cadre, splitting of‑Police Department bound to split joint cadre of ministerial service into ranges and to allocate staff to various ranges‑‑Seniority lists of ministerial staff‑To be prepared range‑wise.

Appellant in person.

Humayun for Respondent No. 2.

‑The appellant has pleaded that under the Rules of 1964 he should have been considered for promotion to the higher rank since the cadre of ministerial staff is rangewise The West Pakistan Police Department Ministerial Service (Range Rules), 1964, were promulgated on the 14th January, 1964. By sub‑rule (2) of rule 1, they came into force at once. Under these circumstances the Police Department was bound to enforce these rules and split the joint cadre of the ministerial service into ranges. The range has been defined in the rules as the whole of the area under the charge of the Deputy Inspector‑General. It was, therefore not difficult for the Department to allocate the staff to various ranges, to meet the requirements of the rules. We find that the Department has been very reluctant to change the state of affairs prevailing under 1933 Punjab Police Clerical Service Rules of Various pleas have been put forward and the matter of the enforcement of 1964 rules has been kept pending. We direct that these Rules be enforced and their require ments properly met. The learned counsel for the I. G. Police points out that respondent No. I Mr. Hassan Abbas Kazmi is senior to the appellant in the rank of Assistant and it is open to the Government to allocate him to the range in which the appellant is serving. In fact in their written plea the respondent Department have also taken that stand. Nonetheless it is the legal right of the appellant to be considered for the determination of the seniority in the Range to which he belongs. We direct that the Rangewise seniority lists of the ministerial staff of the Police Deptt. be prepared and the appellant to be shown at his proper place.

Before parting with the case we might state that in view of their administrative problems the respondent Department have been making tentative efforts to seek the amendment of the rules. It is, of course, open to them to do so, but to rely for departmental administration on these intentions which have not found legal fulfilment for the last several years is not correct.

We order as above. Action be taken on these orders within four months and a report be made to this Tribunal. Parties to bear their own cost.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.