WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and anothers vs GHULAM
This appeal arose from a decision by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the reversion of a Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) employee. The respondent had been promoted to Line Superintendent-II in 1980, but was subsequently reverted to his previous position following representations by colleagues claiming seniority. The Tribunal initially ruled in the respondent's favor, holding that he was entitled to a hearing before his promotion was reversed. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, WAPDA argued that the promotion was provisional, based on a mistaken entry in the respondent's service record regarding his initial appointment date, and that the reversion was a necessary correction of seniority. The Supreme Court observed that the matter involved factual disputes that required proper adjudication. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal by consent, directing the concerned authority to pass fresh orders after affording the respondent and other affected parties an opportunity of hearing. The Court held that when an administrative order is based on disputed factual assumptions, the principles of natural justice require that the affected party be heard before a final decision is made.
- Is an employee entitled to a hearing before a provisional promotion is reversed due to a correction in seniority?
- Does the principle of natural justice require an opportunity of hearing when an administrative authority acts on disputed factual assumptions regarding an employee's service record?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the acceptance by the Service Tribunal, of respondent's service appeal.
2. ' As the appeal is going to be disposed of through an agreed order, therefore, it would suffice to reproduce the statement of facts and the controversy involved as contained in the leave grant order. The relevant part whereof reads as follows:- "The respondent is an employee of WAPDA. He was promoted as Line Superintendent-II on 1-11-1980 but on the basis of some representations made by other employees that they were senior to him, the said order was reversed vide order dated 9-6-1984 and he was reverted as L/M-L ' Feeling dissatisfied, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was accepted vide order dated 9-7-1985 on the ground that he should have been heard before the order of his promotion dated 1-11-1980 was reversed. Hence this petition.
3. ' Mr. Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate, who argued the matter before us on behalf of WAPDA submitted that Riaz Ahmad, on whose representation the respondent was reverted, was, indeed, senior to him. He had been promoted under the mistaken assumption that he had been appointed as L/M-I on 8-6- 1970, whereas he had, in fact, been appointed as L/M-II on the said date and it was only by mistake that he was shown to have been appointed as L/M-I in his Service Book and that this mistake was corrected vide letter No, 5960-66 dated 18-6-1970 of the Superintending Engineer, against which the respondent had not raised any protest. It is further submitted that he was, indeed, regularly promoted as L/M-I vide order dated 1-11-1974 for the first time; that it was the mistaken entry regarding the appointment of the respondent as L/M-I since 8-6-1970 which had resulted in his being promoted as L/M-II earlier than his seniors and that this mistake had been corrected vide the impugned order and that no hearing was necessary before such a correction was made. In this connection, he also pointed out that in the order of promotion of the respondent dated 1-11-1980 it was clearly mentioned that the promotion was provisional and on a purely temporary basis and that the promotecs were liable to reversion on account, inter alia, of wrong fixation of their seniority, without any notice to them. In the face of such a conditional promotion the respondent could not feel aggrieved by the order of his reversion, as his promotion was made on an erroneous view of his true seniority.
4. ' These submissions require further consideration. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted."
5. ' After some discussion it has been realised that some factual assumptions have been made on the submissions made from the appellants' side. And further that the respondent might have made submissions if duly heard by the concerned authority with a view to correct or rebut the pleas raised from the appellants' side. That being so, it was a proper case for the Tribunal to have remanded for proceeding in accordance with law after hearing the respondent. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the appellants states that the opportunity of hearing even now can be afforded to the respondent and in case the previous orders impugned before the Tribunal are upheld, the intervening arrangements and actions, it may be clarified, would not be disturbed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent agreed to this suggestion made by the learned counsel for the appellants. We while disposing of this appeal . The appellant/concerned authority shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent and other concerned persons. If the orders earlier impugned before the Tribunal are upheld, the departmental actions/arrangements and other orders passed in the meanwhile, shall have effect accordingly. On the other and if the orders impugned before the Tribunal are not upheld and different orders are passed, the consequential adjustments/orders may then be passed dealing with the intervening period.
7. ' In the light of what has been stated and with the foregoing observations this appeal is disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL WAHEED Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN 1993 PLC(CS) 1331