2019 PLC(CS) 83

Citation Name : 2019 PLC(CS) 126 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RASHID BHATTI
Side Opponent : The DIRECTOR GENERAL FIA, HEADQUARTERS, ISLAMABAD
R. 3(c)---Fundamental Rules, Pt. II, R. 17(1), proviso---Inter-se seniority ---Grant for seniority in case of supersession and subsequent promotion---Petitioner, who was working as sub-Inspector in BPS-14 in the Federal Investigation Agency, was superseded by several sub-Inspectors of BPS-14 on two separate occasions---Such supersession was not challenged by the petitioner at that time---Subsequently the petitioner was promoted as Inspector (BPS-16) and on assumption of such promoted office, he made representation to the department for inter-se seniority as Inspector (BPS-16)---Service Tribunal declined request of petitioner for inter-se seniority by observing that he was considered twice for promotion by the Department Promotion Committee, but superseded on each occasion by the Committee on account of many factors; that such supersession was approved by the Department Promotion Committee in its successive meetings and resultantly the petitioner could not regain his inter se seniority ---Plea of petitioner that proviso to R. 17(1) of Fundamental Rules made express provision for granting of seniority in case of supersession and subsequent promotion---Validity---Proviso to R. 17(1) provided for a situation where the civil servant who was entitled to be promoted from a particular date but for no fault of his own was wrongfully prevented from rendering services in the higher post was to be paid the arrears of pay and allowances of such higher post through proforma promotion or upgradation by ante-dated fixation of seniority ---Present case, however, was neither of a tenure post nor a deferment case nor that of petitioner being not promoted from a particular date for no fault of his own---Petitioner was deliberately superseded and such supersession was also endorsed by the Departmental Promotion Committee---Rule 17(1) of Fundamental Rules as relied upon by the petitioner therefore, was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused accordingly.


Citation Name : 2019 PLC(CS) 83 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB
Side Appellant : PARVEEN SHAD
Side Opponent : CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
Regularization of service---Scope---Regularization of service is not to be construed as initial recruitment rather it is to be construed as confirmation of existing employment---On confirmation of existing employment, period already served by employees would entitle them to benefit of pay in form of increments, seniority and upgradation etc., as normally available to civil servants.

Related Articles

Appointment of employees appointed on current charge…

Appointment of employees appointed on current charge basis was to come to an end on the appointment…

Superintendent in the subordinate judiciary

Superintendent in the subordinate judiciary

-Civil servant transferred to another department after…

-Civil servant transferred to another department after making a request for mutual transfer with another…

Maxim: Audi alteram partem

Maxim: Audi alteram partem

Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer)…

Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973

Residential Accommodation at Peshawar (Procedure for…

Residential Accommodation at Peshawar (Procedure for Allotment) Rules, 2018

Neither any seniority nor any promotion could be claimed…

Neither any seniority nor any promotion could be claimed or granted without actual length of service…

Whether ad hoc employee, who was switched to contract…

Whether ad hoc employee, who was switched to contract employee and then finally regularized in service…

2019 PLC(CS) 333

2019 PLC(CS) 333

2019 PLC(CS) 83

2019 PLC(CS) 83

Defence Saving Certificates Rules, 1966

Defence Saving Certificates Rules, 1966

PLD 2019 SC 719

PLD 2019 SC 719

Contact Us