Pakistan Case Law
1990 SCMR 1420

AMIR AHMAD vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1990 SCMR 1420
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 498-R of 1989
Date1990-02-22
Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa
Authored byRustam S. Sidhwa
ResultPetition dismissed
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 filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 15-5-1989, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning a seniority claim. The core legal question is whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is liable to be dismissed for failure to implead necessary parties whose seniority rights would be adversely affected. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal under rule 7 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, due to the non-joinder of necessary parties when the petitioner failed to show any cogent reason for such omission. The key principle laid down is that failure to implead directly affected necessary parties in a service seniority dispute warrants the dismissal of the appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal can be dismissed for failing to implead officers likely to be adversely affected by a claim for seniority?
  • Does failure to provide cogent reasons for the non-joinder of necessary parties justify the dismissal of a service appeal?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Rule 7, Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974
service tribunalsenioritynon-joinder of necessary partiespetition for leave to appealservice appeal

ORDER

' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is a petition by Amir Ahmad, petitioner, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 15-5-1989.

2. The petitioner's appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed under rule 7 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, because the petitioner failed to implead over 200 officers who were likely to be adversely affected, if the petitioner's claim for seniority had succeeded.

3. The petitioner who appears in person has not been able to show any cogent reason for the non- joinder of the necessary parties. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

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