MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR ABBAS Versus PAKISTAN
This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Muzaffar Abbas concerning a dispute over seniority in Grade-18 based on the adjustment of seniority in Grade-17. The core legal question was whether a seniority list that was not circulated could form the final basis for determining aggrieved rights without affording an opportunity for representation. The Supreme Court noted the departmental representative's candid admission that the 1992 seniority list was never circulated. Holding that fairness requires proper circulation of the list to enable aggrieved persons to seek remedies, the Court set aside the impugned order. The ratio established is that a seniority list must be duly circulated to the affected personnel, allowing them to file departmental representations and subsequently approach the appropriate forum such as the Federal Service Tribunal if aggrieved.
- Whether an uncirculated seniority list can be used to prejudice the service rights of an employee without providing an opportunity for representation?
- What is the proper procedure for an aggrieved civil servant to challenge a seniority placement after the circulation of a seniority list?
ORDER
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, CJ..‑‑ On the last date of hearing this Court directed that the Chief Engineer, Northern Areas, P.W.D., Gilgit or a responsible departmental representative, who is conversant with the facts of the case, should appear and inform the Court about the date and year‑in which the seniority list in question was published. The petitioner before us claims seniority in Grade‑18 on the basis of adjustment of seniority in Grade‑17 and according to him the seniority list was kept secret and was not circulated at all. We made the above direction in order to have clarification with regard to issue and circulation of the seniority list. In compliance, the learned Deputy Attorney‑General states that the Chief Engineer is unable to appear in the Court for the reason that he is out of country and in his place Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Administrative Officer, who is conversant with the facts of the case and has also brought the record, is present in the Court to answer queries if there are any. This officer has very candidly admitted that the seniority list in question was issued in 1992 but was never circulated. It is further stated by him that necessary steps are being taken to circulate the seniority list in the manner as it should be very soon.
2. In the circumstances, we are of the view that in all fairness after circulation of the seniority list, the petitioner, if he has any grievance with regard to his placement in the seniority list after circulation, should be allowed to file a departmental representation which should be disposed of on merits after which it would be open to him to approach the Federal Service Tribunal for redress of his grievance if he has any.
The impugned order is set aside and with this observation the petition is disposed of.
A. A. /M‑3284/5 Order accordingly.