Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE versus ABDUR RAHIM


Pakistan Railway Personnel Manual Section 5, r6 Seniority Vision failed to absorb against employee's seniority post which was deemed fit for CI due to Vision failure, not countable from the actual date of appointment and absorption date. And held as goods clerk: his senior who is appointed as goods clerk after the date of his original appointment
1985 P L C 808

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present : Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE

Versus

ABDUR RAHIM

Appeal No. LHR‑22 of 1984, decided on 11th November, 1984.

Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual‑Sec. V‑‑

‑‑‑S. 5, r. 6‑Seniority‑Vision failed employee‑Seniority on absorp tion against post in which absorbed‑Countable from original date of appointment and not from date of absorption‑Station Master declared fit for C‑I due to vision failing and absorbed as Goods clerk‑Held: Senior to those appointed as goods clerk after date of his original appointment.

Syed Intisar Hussain for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 6th November, 1984.

JUDGMENT

The decision, dated 7th December, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be promoted as Commercial Supervisor in Grade‑11.

2. The respondent was a Stationmaster. On 18th March, 1976 his vision failed and he was declared fit for C‑1. He was absorbed as Goods Clerk in his excisting scale. But his seniority was fixed according to the date on which he was absorbed as Goods Clerk. In March, 1978, the posts of Goods Clerk were upgraded from Grade No. 8 to Grade No. 11. As the respondent's seniority had been fixed according to the date of his appointment as Goods Clerk, so treating him as junior to those who were already Goods Clerk before his appointment as such, he was not given Scale No. 11 and was not appointed as Commercial Supervisor. It has been argued by the learned counsel that since the respondent was junior, the decision of the learned lower Court is wrong. This mistake occurred when the seniority of the respondent was fixed wrongly. According to section 5, rule 6, seniority of a vision failed employee is to be fixed on the absorbed post according to his original date of appointment and not from the date he was absorbed The respondent was thus senior to those whose date of appointment as Goods Clerk was after the original date of the recruitment of the respondent. He was thus entitled to be given Scale No. I1 and appointed as Commercial Supervisor and his grievance petition was rightly accepted by the learned lower Court.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

A. E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
advocates from Lawrence pur lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.