Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 19‑Q of 1984, decided on 5th May, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Pakistan Service Tribunal, dated 20‑10‑1983 in Appeals Nos. 200(Q) of 1981 and 122(Q) of 1982).

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), Ss. 8 & 9‑‑Seniority/ Promotion‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine plea raised by appellant that after having accepted his claim to seniority, Service Tribunal erred in denying him full consequential benefits, including that of promoting or pro forma promotion, due to him during his service in spite of his retirement.

‑‑‑Ss. 8 & 9‑‑Claim td seniority/promotion‑‑Appellant retiring during pendency of his appeal‑‑Service Tribunal accepted his claim to seniority/ promotion but denied consequential benefits due to his retirement‑ Appellant claiming benefits of salary and other emoluments‑‑Department informing Supreme Court that all benefits due to appellant for period he was in Service had been accorded to him‑‑Appeal dismissed as having become infructuous.

Appellant in person.

Munir A. Malik, Deputy Attorney‑General for Respondent No. 1

Yakub K. Eusufzai, Advocate‑General (Baluchistan) for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 5th May, 1986.

Facts of this case briefly stated are that appellant joined Provincial Civil Service of Baluchistan on 5‑12‑1961 and later on he held cadre posts in the senior scale of C.S.P. After introduction of administrative reforms appellant became a member of newly‑created group of service called All Pakistan Unified Grades (A . P. U . G .) . In 1973, a separate group of service named Tribal Area Group (T.A.G.) was formed and appellant's services were inducted therein on 22‑8‑1974 in N.P.S.‑18. Subsequently, another group of service, known as Secretariat Group was formed, which comprised of all members belonging to A . P. U . G . other than T . A . G . who were serving in the Federal and Provincial Secretariats. To expand that group, applications were invited for selection of Joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries. Appellant also made an application for a post of Joint Secretary but for certain reasons which are unnecessary to mention here, he appeared for an examination for the post of Deputy Secretary and was so appointed by the order, dated 5‑11‑1975. He was later on appointed as Joint Secretary, Law Department under Notification, dated 16‑12‑1975.

Appellant, however, claimed that he having opted for T.A.G. continued to be a member of that group and he is entitled to promotion to Grade‑20 according to his seniority in that group. He ultimately filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, being Appeal No. 200(Q) of 1981, in order to seek the aforesaid claim. He also filed another Appeal, being No. 122(Q) of 1982, claiming that even if he was to be considered as a member of the Secretariat Group, he is entitled to Grade‑20 according to his seniority relatable to his post in the senior C.S.P. scale.

The Service Tribunal however, held that appellant had no claim to seniority and accordingly dismissed Appeal No. 122(Q) of 1982. The other Appeal being No. 200(Q) of 1981, was disposed of with the following observations: ,

"As regards Appeal No. 200(Q) of 1981 the stand of the appellant that he is in the T . A . G . has to be accepted in view of what we have stated above. The appellant has to be assigned seniority in the T . A . G . according to the rules and has to earn promotion subject to fitness. It was made clear before us that no person junior to the appellant in the T.A.G. was promoted to Grade 20. The appellant has since retired and, therefore, the question of his promotion does not arise. The question of seniority too is only of academic importance. However, we accept this appeal to the extent that the appellant shall be treated as member of the T . A . G. and assigned seniority accordingly in the Group."

Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in order to examine the plea raised by the appellant that after having accepted his claim to the seniority in T . A . G . group, the Tribunal erred in denying him the full consequential benefits, including that of promotion or pro forma promotion, due to him during his service in spite of his retirement. In this behalf, it was further submitted that the Service Tribunal was also misled in the belief that none junior to him in the T.A.G. group was promoted to Grade‑20.

When this appeal came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court during the last session on 30‑4‑1985, appellant stated that in implementation of the direction of the Service Tribunal, the Department has issued Memorandum No. 6/50/85‑CP‑11, dated 12th August, 1984 by which his seniority in service has been fixed, but he would like to approach the Department again, for grant of benefits of the salary and other emoluments which he feels are due to him.

According to learned Deputy Attorney‑General who appeared for the Federal Government and also learned Advocate‑General who appeared for the Provincial Government, all the benefits due to the appellant for the period he was in service have been accorded to him and this appeal has now been rendered infructuous.

After having heard the appellant who appears in person we satisfied that the plea raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is correct, and this appeal has been rendered infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

M. I. 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.