Find a Lawyer

Case No. 784 of 1984, decided on 9th April, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Punjab Service Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1975, r. 7‑‑Impleading necessary parties‑‑Seniority dispute‑‑Extra Assistant Commissioners promoted from Tehsildars‑‑Seniority inter se of such promotees disputed‑‑Appeal decided by Tribunal‑‑Appellant an E.A.C., appointed by initial recruitment affected by decision of Tribunal‑‑Plea before Tribunal that as he was not impleaded as party in previous case judgment of Tribunal would not be applicable to him and his case be admitted for regular hearing enabling him to prove that he was senior to respondent a promotee E.A.C., from Tehsildars placed above him in pursuance of judgment of Tribunal‑‑Appellant belonging to different category, appellants in previous case, held, not under obligation to implead him as party‑‑Appeal, in circumstances, dismissed in limine.

Syed Jamshed Ali for Appellant.

A. G. Hamayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Ch. Kabir Ahmed Khan, Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Gujranwala, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, through the Additional Chief Secretary and Muhammad Safdar Khan, Corporation Magistrate, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that Notification, dated 31‑12‑1983 and final order, dated 30‑8‑1984, may be set aside with the direction to respondent No. 1 to place respondent No. 2 below the appellant in seniority list of ACa/ADCs and EACa as corrected upto 31‑12‑1982.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, as the case is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.

4. The main stay of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the appellant was not impleaded as party in case No. 538/1987 of 1982 Muhammad Safdar Khan v. Government of the Punjab and Messrs Muhammad Khan Mohal and 16 others, therefore, the judgment, dated A 25‑10‑1983 delivered in his case, would not be applicable to him and the case be admitted to regular hearing in order to allow him to prove that he was senior to the respondent.

5. Brief facts of the case are as under:

Muhammad Safdar Khan came before this Tribunal in the above mentioned appeal with a specific plea that his seniority as Tehsildar vis‑a‑vis the contesting respondent had not been rightly fixed on misconceived ground that he cleared the departmental examination at much later stage, therefore, he was not member of service and became member of service only when he did so. His case was examined at length and it was held by this Tribunal that according to Tehsildari and Naib‑Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962 seniority of A‑Class Tehsildar had to be determined according to the order of merit assigned by the Board of Revenue at the time of their induction in service and the passing of the departmental examination was neither relevant nor pre‑requisite for the purpose. However, this matter was raised by some of the contesting respondents before the Supreme Court of Pakistan wherein they pleaded for grant of special leave to appeal against the said judgment but they failed to achieve their object as the judgment of this Tribunal was upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan who were pleased to disallow leave in the said appeal.

6. We have examined the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant at length so raised by him on behalf of the appellant and find that his grievance that he was not impleaded as one of the contesting respondents in the said case of Muhammad Safdar Khan, is misconceived on the ground that dispute was between the contesting respondents and the appellant who belonged to the same cadre of A‑Class Tehsildars and the present appellant Ch. Kabir Ahmed Khan was from a different cadre because he was inducted in service through special provisions when he was a practising lawyer. It will be useful to reproduce rule 7 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1975:‑

"In every memorandum of appeal, the competent authority against whose orders the appeal is preferred and any other party to the dispute shall be shown as respondents."

The very reading of this rule clearly reveals that the appellant Ch. Kabir Ahmed Khan was never a party to said dispute, therefore, Muhammad Safdar Khan was not under any obligation to implead him as party. We have also examined the reply of the Department in which they have taken stand that they only implemented the judgment of this Tribunal which has now merged into the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and it was found by them that Muhammad Safdar Khan would rank senior to Ch. Kabir Ahmed Khan, after reckoning his seniority as Tehsildar, in 1966.

7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.

A.E.

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.