ABDUL GHAFFAR and others vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others
This civil appeal arose from a service dispute concerning the fixation of seniority of appellants who had completed training as Tehsildars in 1973. Despite their temporary reversion to Naib-Tehsildars, their representations and review petitions ultimately succeeded, leading to the Board of Revenue restoring their original seniority from the completion of their training. On an appeal by affected respondents, the Service Tribunal set aside the seniority restoration. The Supreme Court considered whether the Service Tribunal could interfere with consequential seniority orders without cancelling the underlying executive orders, and whether proper compliance with applicable service rules was assessed. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal failed to consider the effect of the Governor's orders restoring seniority and whether there was material showing compliance with Rule 8 of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Service Tribunal's decision and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication in light of these considerations.
- Can the Service Tribunal interfere with consequential orders fixing seniority without cancelling the underlying executive orders restoring original status?
- Is consideration of compliance with Rule 8 of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules 1962 essential before deciding seniority disputes among Tehsildars?
- Rule 8, West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules 1962
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C. J.--In these appeals the question for consideration was the fixation of seniority of appellants Rahim Shah and Abdul Ghaffar from 21-3-1973 and 30-5-1973 on which dates they had completed their training upon their selection as Tchsildars. However, by an order dated 30th of May, 1973, they were reverted to the posts of Naib-Tehsildars against which they made representations but did not succeed as those were not accepted. Their review petitions succeeded and their original selection as Tehsildars was upheld. In the meantime they had also been promoted as Tehsildars.
2. ' The dispute, however, arose when they applied for fixation of their seniority and the Board of Revenue by orders dated 26-1-1978 and 25-3-1978 restored their original seniority as from the date when they had completed their training. Respondents who were affected moved the Tribunal and succeeded.
3. Leave was granted to consider whether without the concellation of orders dated 10th of January, 1975 and 30th of January, 1976, the consequential orders fixing their seniority could be interfered with.
4. Upon hearing the learned counsel and examining the record we are of the view that the Tribunal had failed to consider the effect of the orders of the Governor, and also as to whether there was any material to show compliance with rule 8 of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962, before any claim to seniority could be entertained or contested in the context of the above orders restoring the seniority. These questions are elemental for deciding the appeals.
5. ' Accordingly, we would set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the cases to it for deciding them afresh in accordance with the above guidelines.
6. There will be no order as to costs.