Mian AURANGZEB vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry
This petition arises out of conflicting views taken by Members of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, where two Members dismissed the matter on merits while one Member concluded that the petitioner should be given due seniority. The petitioner was initially appointed on an ad hoc basis in April 1989 and subsequently qualified through the Federal Public Service Commission. The core legal question for consideration is whether the petitioner's long service of more than twelve years should be counted to his credit for seniority purposes. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question and examine the conflicting views of the Tribunal.
- Whether the period of service rendered on ad hoc basis should be counted towards seniority when the employee subsequently qualifies through the Federal Public Service Commission?
- How are conflicting views among Members of the Federal Service Tribunal resolved on appeal before the Supreme Court?
ORDER
KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.- This petition arises out of conflicting view taken by Members of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. Two Members passed the order merits dismissal, whereas, one Member has come to the conclusion that the petitioner should be given due seniority.
2. It is contended, inter alia, by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis some time in April, 1989, thereafter, the Government made a request for filing in the vacancy through Federal Public Service Commission. The petitioner appeared and duly qualified.
3. The question required consideration is that whether the petitioner in the given circumstances when he has served the respondent-department for more than twelve years should be counted to his credit.
4. Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to consider the above question.