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.
Case No. 627/931 of 1984, decided on 24th April, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Promotion‑‑Appellant not considered while promoting juniors‑‑Departmental representation pending‑‑Tribunal, in circumstances, directing for decision on representation in interest of justice within 2 months and disposing of appeal as premature.
Mumtaz Hussain Bazmi for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun. District Attorney for Respondents.
Mirza Shabbir Baig, Girdawar Kanungo has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, whereby he has impleaded the Member, BOR, Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, D.C. Rahimyar Khan and eight others, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be accepted and orders, dated 15‑6‑1982, 16‑7‑1983 and 6‑12‑1983, passed by respondents be set aside and the appellant be granted seniority according to law.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was entered in the list of Kanungo candidates in the year 1955 and thereafter he was appointed as Girdawar Kanungo on 25‑9‑1959. He was confirmed as such w.e.f. 23‑2‑1970. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that his name has been shown wrongly in the seniority list on the basis of which he has not been considered for promotion. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that according to seniority list of 1969 and 1970, the name of appellant was not sent to the Selection Committee/ Promotion Committee whereas the names of his juniors were sent and considered by the said Committee. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a further grievance that the name of the appellant stands at serial No. 20 in the seniority list issued on 4‑11‑1972, whereas Rana Abdul Hamid and Malik Muhammad Mohsin who were junior in the earlier seniority lists shown senior in the list of 1972. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that in the seniority list of 1978 the officials shown at Sr. No. 23, 27, 36, 37, 38, 54, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64 and Muhammad Hanif who were admitted by junior to the appellants even according to the seniority list quoted above, were considered and promoted against the post of Naib‑Tehsildar. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the appellant made representations to the Member, B.O.R. on 7‑4‑1984 through proper channel against these illegal orders of promotion of respondent, which is still pending before it.
4. In view of the above, I direct the Member, B.OR. to decide the representation of the appellant so pending before him within 2 months in the interest of justice. The appeal is disposed of as premature.
A. E.
Orders accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer