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 Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos. 333‑K and 334‑K of 1985, decided on 21st May, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind Service Tribunal, Karachi, dated 29‑4‑1985 in Appeal No. 5 of 1984).
‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Seniority‑‑Factual position on which impugned order based not challenged‑‑Petitions being without merit, dismissed.
A. Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate‑General for Petitioners (in Civil Petition 333‑K of 1985).
Usman Ghani Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Civil Petition 334‑K of 1985) .
Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions).
Date of hearing: 21st May, 1986.
Both these petitions are for leave to appeal from the same judgment of Sind Service Tribunal, dated 29‑4‑1985 by which an appeal filed by Ghulam Sarwar respondent was allowed with the direction that the seniority list of the officers concerned may be prepared by the department and the aforesaid respondent may be placed in the list according to the date of his initial recruitment in NP‑‑16 irrespective of regularisation of his appointment under M.L.O. 55.
Facts of the case briefly stated are that Ghulam Sarwar respondent had originally joined Food Department, Government of Sind as Foodgrain Inspector. He was afterwards appointed as Ward Rationing Officer against a clear vacancy in N.P. 16 by the Government of Sind.
We find that on perusal of the record the Service Tribunal has reached the following conclusion:‑
"This petitioner's appointment was not for any fixed period. It was not stopgap arrangement. It was against 25 quota of direct recruits. The appointment was against a substantive vacancy. The incumbent had been recruited by the Government as special case by relaxation of rules. This appointment could not, therefore, be termed as ad hoc. On the other hand, the appointment being for indefinite duration and having continued from 1972 to 1978 up to the time of promulgation of M.L.O. 55 was clearly meant to continue indefinitely, and on this basis the appointee could claim Constitutional Guarantees under Article 179. The term 'ad hoc' and so also the term 'regularisation' used in M.L.O. 55 cannot, therefore, adversely affect the seniority of the appellant."
Since no challenge has been made to the aforesaid factual position we hardly find any merit in these petitions. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.
M. Y. H. Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer