Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeals Nos. 568 and 569 of 1982, decided on 11th January, 1983.
(On appeal from the Judgment and Order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 18‑5‑1982 in Appeals Nos. 115 and 116 of 1977).
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 7(2)‑ Seniority‑‑Determination of‑‑Basis of continuous officiating service‑‑Class I Service of Civil Engineers in Irrigation Department‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether application /interpretation of explanation to Rule as made by Service Tribunal in instant case, was correct.
Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Mumtaz Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11th January, 1983.
Leave is sought against the consolidated judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 18‑5‑1982 passed in Appeals Nos. 115 and 116 filed by respondent No.2 and Tahir Ahmed who had filed a separate appeal.
2. Facts giving rise to these appeals are that the respondent No.2 and Tahir Ahmed had challenged the fixation of their seniority in the cadre of officiating Executive Engineers in Class I Service of Engineers in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Punjab. By the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal, the two appeals were accepted and the seniorities fixed by the Government firstly on 14‑10‑1972 and subsequently, followed in the Notification, dated 19‑8‑1975 and lastly during the pendency of the appeals, were set aside, and the respondent No.2 and Mr. Tahir Ahmad Malik were directed to be placed senior to the petitioners and other respondents (now added as respondents Nos.4 to 37). The controversy between the petitioners and the contesting respondents is with regard to their placement in the seniority list officiating Executive Engineers in Class I Service. The contesting parties were promoted as Executive Engineers on different dates. These two petitioners were originally appointed as temporary Engineers in the Department as far back as in the year 1950. They were formally inducted into Class II Service by Notification issued in the year 1972 though they assumed charge on 14‑10‑1955 as the date of such entry into service. The two petitioners became officiating Executive Engineers in 1959 and 1962 respectively though by a Notification dated 22‑7‑1971 it was said that they shall be entitled to Class I status with effect from that date.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the application of rule 15.2 to the case of the petitioners had not been correctly made as this rule clearly states that the seniority of Class II Officers and temporary Engineers recruited to or absorbed in the service who were holding the posts of Executive Engineers or equivalent posts, shall be determined with reference to their continuous officiation as such. The petitioners were temporary Engineers and having been inducted into Class II from 14‑10‑1955 were holding the posts of Executive Engineers from the years 1959 and 1962 respectively as mentioned earlier, therefore, their seniority in Class I has to be determined on the basis of continuous officiating service from the aforesaid period; that the learned Service Tribunal has misconstrued the explanation to rule 15.2 in their application to the present case holding that the case of the two parties was that of promotees from the cadres of Assistant Executive Engineers (Class I Junior) to the cadre of Executive Engineers and since respondent No.2 and Mr. Tahir Ahmed Malik had not been superseded by the petitioners, therefore, they continue to carry their seniority as Assistant Executive Engineers qua the petitioners. It was further contended by the learned counsel that it was not a case of promotion from Grade I (Junior) to that of Executive Engineer. The petitioners were, in fact, promoted earlier. It was lastly contended that in case rule 15.2 was not applicable; the only Rule which could determine the relative seniority of the partie‑A was rule 15.4. Leave is granted as the points raised by the learned) counsel need consideration.
M.I. Leave granted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer