Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 467

WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYPeitioner vs ABDUL RASHID

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 467
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,250-R of 1987
Date1988-06-21
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh
Authored byAbdul Kadir Shaikh
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the respondent's service appeal was allowed and he was held entitled to be granted Grade-16 as a sub-Engineer. The core legal questions involve whether the respondent's appeal before the Service Tribunal was barred for failure to exhaust departmental remedies under section 4 of the relevant Act, whether the appeal was barred by time, and whether the respondent possessed the requisite recognized qualification in civil engineering for promotion to Grade-16 given that the institution's recognition status was disputed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised by the petitioner required detailed consideration, and suspended the operation of the impugned judgment pending the final decision of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that questions concerning the exhaustion of departmental remedies, limitation periods, and educational qualifications for service upgradation warrant a full hearing on merits before the apex court.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 if the aggrieved civil servant fails to file a departmental appeal or review against the original adverse order?
  • Whether an employee holding a diploma from an institution recognized only for specific disciplines is qualified for promotion or upgradation to Grade-16 in a different discipline under the applicable service rules?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
service appealdepartmental appeallimitation periodupgradationcivil engineering diplomaleave to appeal

ORDER

1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 1-8-1987 by which respondent's appeal was allowed with the direction that he "is entitled to be granted Grade-16 as a qualified and/or unqualified sub-Engineer, without any reservation.

2. ' Facts of the case briefly stated are that respondent joined service on 2012-1968 as a Surveyor under the petitioner-Authority. At that time he had put in one year service in the Government School of Engneering, Rasool (Punjab) but had not completed the prescribed period of two years' service for Overseers Certificate Course. He however cleared a diploma course in Civil Engineering from the School of Electricians, Lahore in 1973 and was appointed as Overseer (Civil) with effect from 11-11-1974. On 22-2-1984 he made an application that having completed 10 years service, he was eligible for upgradation in BPS-16. His request was rejected under letter dated 23-7-1985, and being aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal to the Service Tribunal which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 1-8-1987, as stated above.

3. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the Federal Service Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent's appeal was barred under section 4 of the Act as he had failed to file a departmental appeal or review against the impugned order dated 23-7-1985. In this behalf, learned counsel pointed out that the order dated 23-7-1985 was not an order passed on an appeal but on the original representation made by respondent. Learned counsel further pointed out that the Service Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that even if the appeal was competent for the sake of argument, it was barred by time and ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone. On merits of the case, learned counsel pointed out that the School for Electricians Lahore was recognised only for Electrical Course, and not for the others, namely, civil mechnical etc. And respondent not being a person qualified under the rules could not be considered for promotion or appointment in Grade-16.

4. ' The points raised by the learned counsel deserve consideration. We, therefore, after condoning the delay grant leave to appeal and allow the petition.

5. ' Appeal will be heard on the present record but the appellant is directed to file all the necessary documents.

6. ' The operation of the impugned order is stayed till appeal is decided.

Cited by 11 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.