Dr. AZEEMUR REHMAN and others vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others
This matter comprises civil appeals directed against a consolidated judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal which dismissed appeals against a seniority list. The core legal question concerned the validity of the seniority list and the failure of the departmental authority to decide pending appeals filed against it. Upon court query, the Advocate-General Sindh submitted that the seniority list required modification due to deaths and retirements, and conceded that pending departmental appeals had not yet been decided, stating the Provincial Government had no objection if the appeals were partly allowed for that purpose. The respondent counsel did not contest this stance. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment regarding the findings against the appellants, and directed the Competent Authority in the Department to decide the pending appeals within six weeks after hearing all concerned, establishing the principle that departmental remedies and pending appeals must be exhausted and adjudicated by the competent authority in service matters.
- Whether an appellate court can set aside a service tribunal judgment to direct the departmental authority to decide pending departmental appeals?
- Can a seniority list be modified due to subsequent events such as retirement or death of employees?
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---This order shall dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 1233 to 1251 of 2005 directed against the consolidated judgment dated 7-4-2005 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal vide which the appeals of the appellants against seniority list dated 19-8-1999 were dismissed.
2. Learned Advocate-General Sindh submits on court query that the original seniority list dated 24- 3-1998 was superseded by the list issued on 19-8-1999 because certain persons had died and some of them had retired and the list needed modification/rectification. Adds that the appeals filed by the appellants against the seniority fist dated 19-8-1999 before the Departmental Authority were not decided and it would be in the interest of justice if those appeals are decided in the first instance as those according to his instructions are still pending. In these circumstances he submitted that Provincial Government would have no objection if the instant appeals are partly allowed and the impugned judgment to their extent is set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not join issue with learned Advocate-General on the stand taken by him.
4. In the afore-referred circumstances, the appeals are partly allowed, the impugned judgments with regard to the findings that the appellants are set aside and the Competent Authority in the Department is directed to decide the pending appeals within six weeks of the receipt of this order after hearing all concerned.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. GAMAN Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN 2012 MLD 701