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 allowed the respondent's appeal regarding seniority and pay fixation. The Tribunal had directed that the respondent be granted seniority and continuous service benefits, consistent with a previous case and a departmental letter dated 6-6-1995, issued pursuant to Section 9-A of the Cantonments Ordinance 1971. The petitioners argued that they had validly recalled the order under the rule of locus poenitentiae, thereby disentitling the respondent to the claimed benefits. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, finding that the Tribunal had correctly determined the respondent's entitlement to benefits and seniority under the law prevailing at the relevant time. The Court held that the Tribunal provided cogent and valid reasons for its decision and that the matter did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance warranting interference under its constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Can a departmental order granting seniority and pay benefits be unilaterally recalled under the rule of locus poenitentiae when the entitlement is based on prevailing law?
- Does the rule of consistency require that an employee be granted the same seniority and pay benefits as other similarly situated employees?
- Section 9-A, Cantonments Ordinance 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(K)(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,296-K 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 note 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 poneitentiae 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 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.
Cited by 1 case
- Nadeem Zuberi vs Civil Aviation Authority through Director General 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1133