Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1368 of 1983, decided on 18th January, 1984.

(Against the judgment of Service Tribunal Lahore/Islamabad dated 6‑10‑1983 in Appeal No. 58 (L) 1979).

‑‑ Art. 212‑Civil service‑Leave to appeal granted to consider ques tions of law involving public importance that (1) whether provisional seniority list conferred a fresh cause of action against refusal to treat promotion of employee as regular from date he was given charge of next higher post on 121 per cent of pay of said higher post; (2) whether it was not a past and closed transaction and seniority as fixed on basis of such a final order could not entitle employee to reopen earlier final order; (3) whether in respect of refusal to promote employee from earlier date Civil Service Tribunal had jurisdiction at all after its decision as order itself passed prior to Ist July, 1969 ; (4) whether Tribunal was right in holding that departmental authority had no right to apply a rule framed with regard to eligibility for promotion to higher post in so far as such employee was concerned who was not on date that rule was framed regularly appointed to such higher post but was substantively holding post lower than one in respect of which framed rules were altered.

Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Deputy Attorney‑General (Punjab) and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 18th January, 1984.

The Water and Power Development Authority seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 6‑10‑1983 whereby the appeal of respondent No. I against the provisional seniority list of junior accounts was allowed and his regular promotion to that post was ante‑dated.

The respondent No. 1 joined the petitioner on 12‑2‑1960 and in 1964 was holding the post of Assistant Accountant. He was given the current charge of the next higher post of junior accountant from 27‑11‑1964 on 12‑1/2 per cent of the pay of the higher post. He was regularly appointed to that post on 6‑12‑1966. After he was so regularly promoted he made representations seeking his regular promotion from the date he held the current charge of the post, that is, 27‑11‑1964. His representations were rejected. He filed a civil suit which was dismissed. His appeal against the decision of the civil Court abated. He brought his claim to the Service Tribunal which too rejected his claim on the twin grounds reproduced hereunder ‑

"(b) no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade ;

(c) no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority made at any time before the Ist July, 1969. "

In the year 1977 a provisional seniority list of junior accountants was issued in which treating the respondent to be promoted as junior accountant from the date 6‑12‑1966 he was placed at serial No. 28. He again represented claiming that his seniority be fixed as if regularly promoted on 27‑11‑1964. The authority rejected it on 23‑6‑1979 and then he brought the question of seniority to the Tribunal and this time again the foundation of the claim was the same as in the earlier proceedings namely that he ought to have been promoted regularly from 27‑11‑1964, and given seniority accordingly. He impleaded the necessary parties as directed by the tribunal and the Tribunal allowed his claim holding that the provisional seniority list afforded him a fresh cause of action to agitate against the earlier refusal not to deem him promoted from the date he was allowed to hold the current charge. He was allowed the necessary relief.

The appeal does raise a number of questions of law of public importance. Some of these are whether the provisional seniority list did, in fact, confer a fresh cause of action against the refusal to treat the promotion of respondent No. 1 as regular from 27‑11‑1964, whether it was not a past and closed transaction and seniority as fixed on the basis of such a final order could not entitle respondent No. 1 to reopen the earlier final order, and whether in respect of refusal to promote the respondent from an earlier date the Tribunal had any jurisdiction at all after its earlier decision as the order itself was passed prior to Ist of July, 1969. It also requires examination whether the Tribunal was right in saying that the departmental authority had no right to apply a rule framed with regard to the eligibility for promotion to higher post in so far as the respondent No. 1 was concerned who was not on the date that the rule was framed regularly appointed to the higher post but was substantively holding the post lower than the one in respect of which the framed rules were altered.

We grant leave to appeal. The order of the Tribunal is meanwhile suspended.

M.Z. M Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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