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 No. 83‑P of 1985, decided on 26th October, 1986.
(From the judgment of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 17‑1‑1985, passed in Appeal No. 86 of 1984).
‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑North‑West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act (XVIII of 1973), Ss. 8 & 9‑‑North‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), Ss. 4 & 7‑‑Seniority‑‑Promotions with retrospective effect, challenged‑‑Order set aside by Service Tribunal Government seeking leave to appeal produced no Rules or Regulations authorizing it to order promotions with retrospective effect‑‑Administrative letters relied upon by petitioner neither relevant nor could be equated with any law or Regulation and thus could not be pressed into service for affecting rights of parties‑‑Findings of Tribunal not open to interference‑‑Petition dismissed.
‑‑‑Promotion with retrospective effect‑‑Letters not based on any Rule or Regulation‑‑Administrative letters relied upon found irrelevant nor could be pressed for affecting rights of parties‑‑Orders of promotion set aside.
Mian Ajmal, Assistant Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. instructed by Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th October, 1986.
The Government of N.‑W.F.P. through the Chief Secretary seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Provincial Service Tribunal, dated 17‑1‑1985, whereby the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 with retrospective effect was set aside.
2. The facts of the case have been given by the learned Chairman, Provincial Service Tribunal in detail and we need not repeat them. Suffice it to say that a seniority list of the senior scale stenographers as it stood, on 1‑7‑1983 was published by the Government wherein respondents 2 and 3 were shown junior to their batch‑mates. On their representation, however, the Government promoted them senior to respondent No. 1 with effect from 17‑7‑1974 as per order, dated 11‑4‑1984. This was challenged by way of an appeal by respondent No. 1 before the Provincial Service Tribunal. This appeal was heard and through the impugned judgment the order of promotion of respondents 2 and 3 was set aside.
3. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate‑General and gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal and are of the view that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal do not require any interference in that no rule or regulation was produced by the Government either before the Tribunal or before this Court authorising it to order promotion with retrospective effect. The two letters, dated 10‑5‑1974 and 8‑11‑1974 (on pages 60 and 62 of the paper book) which are being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not only not relevant but they cannot be equated with any law or regulation. They are simply administrative letters and cannot be pressed into service for affecting the rights of the parties. No case has been made out for grant of leave. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer