Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 956 of 1983, decided on 22nd April, 1985.

(Against the judgment and order, dated 28th March, 1983 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No. 108(L) of 1976).

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S.8‑‑Seniority‑‑Claim for‑‑Tribunal rejecting grossly belated claim of seniority‑‑Order impugned‑‑Petitioner failed to point any document/ material on record which may unsettle factual basis of impugned decision‑‑No question of law requiring further examination being raised, leave to appeal refused.

Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1985.

The petitioner, a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 28th March, 1983.

2. The petitioner while posted as an Assistant in WAPDA felt aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him in the grade of Junior Clerk and in the grade of Assistant. After unsuccessfully representing to the higher authority in the department, the petitioner appealed to the Service Tribunal. The Federal Service Tribunal by the impugned order allowed him the seniority from the date he claimed in the grade of Junior Clerk. As regards the seniority in the grade of Assistant, the Tribunal allowed his claim but imposed a condition on it. The claim of the petitioner was that Naeem Pervez who was promoted as an Assistant on 4th June, 1963 and Zargone Shah, Mirza Zamir Hussain and Abdul Khaliq who were promoted subsequently were all junior to him and therefore he should get seniority over Naeem Pervez and others. This claim of the petitioner as against these named persons was rejected by the Tribunal observing as follows‑‑

"At the relevant time viz. , 4th June, 1963, Naeem Pervez was working in the D&C Division whereas the appellant was in the I.B.P. Division with his seniority in the said Division. The two had their own respective seniorities in two separate Divisions for promotion to the next higher grade and there was no clash between them. There is, therefore, no merit in appellant's claim over Naeem Pervez (respondent No. 3). Apart from this, too, we do not think the appellant has, legally speaking, any valid case either against Naeem Pervez or against Zargone Shah, Mirza Zamir Hussain and Abdul Khaliq. Naeem Pervez and the three others, just named, were promoted, respectively on 4th June, 1963 and 17th December, 1965. The appellant kept on protesting against the promotion of Naeem Pervez but not against the promotion of other three. He did not get any reply to his representations. He could have, if he thought he had been wronged, taken a recourse to legal proceedings in a Court of law, which he did not. We are not, therefore, in a position to do anything for the appellant at this grossly belated stage in so far as his case against Naeem is concerned or for that matter the other three."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the basis on which the petitioner has been denied seniority over Naeem Pervez and others named, is not correct. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion and to be treated for the matter of seniority to be senior to Naeem Pervez who got promotion on 4th June, 1963.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point to any document or material on our record which may unsettle the factual basis of the impugned decision of the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, from the repeated representations made and the time lost the factual basis gets strengthened. The petition apart from such a factual challenge raised no such question of law as may require further examination by this Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Hence leave to appeal is refused.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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