Director General, Military Land and Cantonment Department and another
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent's appeal regarding seniority and pay fixation. The respondent sought benefits based on the principle of consistency, citing a previous case and a departmental letter dated 6.6.1995 issued under Section 9-A of the Amended Ordinance XXXI of 1971. The petitioners argued that the impugned judgment was unsustainable because they had recalled the relevant order under the rule of locus poenitentiae, thereby disentitling the respondent to the claimed benefits. The Supreme Court examined the contentions and found no merit in the petitioners' arguments. The Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal had correctly determined that the respondent was entitled to seniority and benefits under the law prevailing at the relevant time. Finding that the Tribunal provided cogent and valid reasons for its decision and that no substantial question of law of public importance was involved, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decision to grant the respondent continuity of service and associated benefits.
- Is an employee entitled to seniority and pay fixation benefits based on the rule of consistency when their case is identical to previously decided matters?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae allow an employer to unilaterally recall service benefits previously granted under statutory provisions?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court decline to interfere with a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal?
- 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(0)(CS) 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 respondent's case being identical to that of Appeal No. 296K of 1997 following the rule of consistency directed his seniority and fixation of pay without break be made 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-poniteniae recalled the order, therefore the respondent would not be entitled to benefits as awarded to other such employees who had served the Army, 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 respondents which did not call for our interference under the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, considering also that no substantial question of law of public importance is involved, hence case for leave to appeal is made out, consequently leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed. .