MUHAMMAD NABI vs THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service dispute concerning the determination of seniority between the petitioner, an Overseer, and the respondents, who were appointed as ad hoc Assistant Executive Engineers. The core legal question was whether seniority should be reckoned from the date of initial work-charged or ad hoc appointment, or from the date of regular appointment following approval by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner challenged a revised seniority list that placed the respondents above him, arguing that prior work-charged or ad hoc service was irrelevant for seniority purposes. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal, upholding the revised seniority list. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the respondents, having been appointed as Assistant Engineers prior to the petitioner, were correctly granted seniority over him. The Court found the Tribunal's order equitable and dismissed the petition, effectively affirming that the date of appointment to the post, relative to other incumbents, remains a primary factor in determining seniority rankings in this context.
- Can seniority be claimed based on service rendered on a work-charged or ad hoc basis?
- Is seniority determined from the date of regular appointment following Public Service Commission approval?
- Does an earlier appointment date as an Assistant Executive Engineer entitle an employee to seniority over an employee appointed later?
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J: --Muhammad Nabi petitioner was appointed as Overseer on work-charged basis on 23-7-1973 in the P.W.D. In the Northern Areas and similarly, respondents Muzaffar Abbas on 4-11-1972, Ali Ahmad Jan, on 20-2-1973 and Muhammad Yaqoob on 4-11-1972. They were appointed as ad hoc Assistant Executive Engineers (B-17) w.e.f. 1-1-1974 and their services were regularized through the Public Service Commission with retrospective effect i.e. 1-1-1974, vide letter No.16-1-1974.
2. In the official Gazette Notification dated 23-12-1981 the petitioner was notified at serial No.22, respondents Nos. 6 to 8 at Serial Nos. 26, 27 and 25 respectively, while in the seniority list the petitioner was placed at S.No.1 and the respondents Nos. 6 to 8 were placed at S. Nos. 5, 6 and 4, respectively. Muzaffar Abbas respondent made a representation that he has been initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on 1-4-1973 and his seniority may be reckoned from that date and thus he alongwith other respondents succeeded and got their seniority list revised wherein respondents mentioned above were placed at S. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the petitioner was shown at S. No.4. The petitioner challenged the revised seniority list in a departmental appeal and thereafter he preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 5-7-1989/10-6-1989. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel in support of this petition is whether seniority can be assigned to the incumbent of a post from the date of the work-charge appointment or from the date of ad hoc appointment and according to the learned counsel seniority is to count from the date of regular appointment and on the approval of the Public Service Commission and for that purpose the services rendered on work-charge basis or ad hoc basis have no relevancy to claim the seniority.
4. After having perused the judgment of the learned Service Tribunal, we find it a quite equitable order as the respondents were appointed Assistant Engineers earlier to the petitioner and they have rightly been allowed the seniority over the petitioner. The result is that this petition has no merit which is accordingly dismissed.