DIRECTOR GENERAL, MILITARY LAND AND CANTONMENT DEPARTMENT and another vs Dr. Capt. NAZEER AHMED BALOCH
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had granted the respondent seniority and pay fixation with continuity of service based on a letter dated 6-6-1995, issued pursuant to Section 9-A of the Amended Ordinance XXXI of 1971. The petitioners argued that they had recalled the relevant order under the rule of locus poenitentiae, thereby disentitling the respondent to the benefits granted to other similarly situated employees. The Supreme Court examined the contentions and found no merit in the petitioners' arguments. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the Tribunal had provided cogent and valid reasons for its findings, correctly determining that the respondent was entitled to the benefits and seniority under the law prevailing at the relevant time. Finding no constitutional question of law of public importance that would warrant interference, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the principle that employees are entitled to benefits consistent with applicable statutory provisions and established administrative orders.
- Whether an employee is entitled to seniority and pay fixation benefits granted under a specific administrative letter issued pursuant to statutory provisions?
- Does the rule of locus poenitentiae permit the recall of an order granting service benefits to an employee when those benefits were consistent with the law prevailing at the time?
- Is the principle of consistency applicable to service matters where an employee's case is identical to previously decided cases?
- Section 9-A, Amended Ordinance XXXI of 1971
ORDER
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 7-9-2002 in appeal No,273(D)(C.S.) of 2000 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal at Karachi, whereby the said appeal of the respondent was allowed and it was ordered that the respondents case being identical to that of appeal No,296-K of 1997 following the rule of consistency directed his seniority and fixation of pay without break be niade with continuity of service as envisaged in the letter, dated 6-6-1995 having been issued in terms of the legal provisions contained in section 9-A of the Amended Ordinance XXXI of 1971 awarding all benefits in view of the letter, dated 6-6- 1995.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the memo. Of petition as well as in the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained as the petitioners in view of the rule of locus poeniteniae recalled the order, therefore the respondents would not be enft lc 1 to benefits as awarded to other such employees who had served the in view of section 9-A of the Amended Ordinance and as per subsequent letter, dated 6-6-1995.
5. We do not find merit and substance in the said contention.
6. Learned Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment has rightly held in paras. 6 to 8 of the impugned judgment that the respondent was entitled to all such benefits and seniority under the law which prevailed at the relevant time. Learned Tribunal has given cogent and valid reasons in support of the appeal of the respondent which did not call for our interference under the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, considering also that the constitutional question of law of public importance is involved, hence no case for leave to appeal is made out, consequently leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.