Determination of seniority

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS) 1129 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : SHOUKAT ALI MUGHAL
Side Opponent : SECRETARY SERVICES AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT MUZAFFARABAD
seniority ---Determination of---Procedure---seniority could only be determined from the date of regular appointment made either by initial recruitment, transfer or promotion.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS) 1129 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : SHOUKAT ALI MUGHAL
Side Opponent : SECRETARY SERVICES AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT MUZAFFARABAD
S.4---Appeal to Service Tribunal---Limitation---Induction of employee through transfer---seniority ---Determination of--- Procedure---Employee was inducted into service of serving department through mutual transfer against permanent post on regular basis---Mere fact that lien of employee was kept intact with the parent department did not mean that he was appointed on temporary or ad-hoc basis---Provision of lien in the parent department was provided just for the purpose that in case there was any hardship for a civil servant in the transferee department then he/she might join the service in the parent department---Regular induction of a civil servant made by transfer could not be given any other meaning---seniority could only be determined from the date of regular appointment made either by initial recruitment, transfer or promotion---Appointments made otherwise could not be considered as regular appointment and not relevant for determination of seniority ---Conditions for determination of seniority were regular appointment to the grade or post and continuous service---Induction of employee in the serving department was made through transfer which was one of the recognized modes of regular appointment and there was also continuity in his service---Serving department had to determine seniority of the employee from the date when he joined the post in the said department---Service Tribunal had failed to adhere to the fact that seniority had to be determined from the date of regular appointment and anti-dated/proforma appointment was not a regular appointment---Retrospective effect given to the appointments of respondents did not affect the right of seniority of inducted employee---Dismissal of appeal on the ground that said employee had not challenged the proforma appointment of respondent was illogical---Employee challenged the seniority list dated 22-11-2011 on 18-02-2012 after a period of eighty eight days which was within time---Impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was based on mis-reading and non-reading of record---Employee was inducted into service on regular basis through transfer order dated 09-09-2000 in the serving department---seniority of employee should be reckoned from the date of joining of the post i.e. 11-09-2000 and not from the date when his lien came to an end in the parent department---Impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was set aside---Department was directed to determine the seniority of employee from the date of his induction i.e. 11-09-2000 and enter his name at proper place in the seniority list---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS) 482 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad
Side Opponent : Syeda SABEEN NAZ GILLANI
R. 8---Section Officer appointed in compliance with direction of High Court---seniority ---Determination of---Procedure---Batch fellows of civil servant were appointed as Section Officers on 11-02-2011 on the recommendations of Public Service Commission whereas appointment of appellant/employee was made on 29-04-2013 in compliance with direction of High Court---Employee filed appeal for determination of her seniority ---Service Tribunal accepted appeal with the observation that seniority of employee would be reckoned along with the group appointed in pursuance of recommendations made by the Public Service Commission at the relevant time---Validity---Appointment order of the batch fellows of employee was issued on 11-02-2011---Employee filed writ petition and High Court accepted the same while issuing direction to the Public Service Commission to recommend the employee---Government appointed the employee on the said recommendation of Public Service Commission thereafter---Employee was illegally deprived of her vested right; right of appointment had accrued to the employee along with her batch fellows---Appointment of employee would be deemed to be made on the date when the group along whom she qualified the test/interview was appointed---seniority should be determined on the basis of date of continuous/actual appointment, however where a civil servant had been deprived of his/her vested right then his matter of seniority should be considered retrospectively to redress his/her grievance and to protect his/her accrued right---Service Tribunal had not committed any illegality while passing the impugned judgment---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.