MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDUQUI, J.---We heard the petitioner who appeared in person in Petition No, 160 of 1992, Mr. M.S. Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Petition No,64 of 1992 and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, the learned Dy. A.-G., in the above petitions for leave to appeal against the orders of Federal Services Tribunal, dated 12-2-1992 and 3-12-1991 respectively, converted these petitions into appeals and finally disposed of the appeals as follows: ' The grievance of the petitioner in Petition No,160 of 1992 is that he was promoted in Grade 17 with effect from 4-8-1988 while the department fixed his pay in the above grade with effect from 2-12- 1988. He made a representation to the departmental authorities for fixation of his pay in Grade 17 from the date of his promotion, namely 4-8-1988 which was rejected. He then tiled an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was also rejected on 12-2-1992. In seeking leave to appeal, against the order of Service Tribunal, the petitioner contended that the Service Tribunal while rejecting his appeal totally ignored the Notification No,6/1/89-A-II, dated 23-9-1990, which was before the Tribunal and which clearly supported the contention of appellant that he was promoted in Grade 17 with effect from 4-8-1988.

2. ' In CPLA 64 of 1992, Mr. M.S. Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner who is an Assistant Engineer in Grade 16 and is senior to respondents Nos.3 to 5 was ignored by the department at the time of promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Grade 17) and respondents Nos.3 to 5 who were junior to him were promoted. The Service Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, however, held that the petitioner belongs to the cadre of Assistant Engineer (B&R) while respondents 3 to 5 were in a different cadre of Assistant Engineer (Electrical and Mechnical) and as such the petitioner could not claim promotion in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (E & M). The Tribunal also found that the seniority lists of the Civil Engineers (B&R) and Civil Engineers (Electrical and Mechanical) were separately maintained by the department for promotion.

3. ' The learned counsel in support of the leave petition contended that the Service Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner failed to consider that against the quota of Departmental promotees in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (B&R) there were many vacancies at the relevant time and, therefore, if the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner could not claim promotion in the vacancy of Assistant Executive Engineer (E&M), being a different cadre, the petitioner could be considered for, promotion in his own cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (B&R). To support his contention the learned counsel relied on a statement showing the number of vacancies in the two cadres, filed with the petition, and urged that this document was available before the Tribunal but it was omitted from consideration. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner had also specifically contended before the Service Tribunal that he was entitled to the salary of Grade 17 post as he was holding the post of S.D.O. (Grade 17) with effect from 6-5- 1974. In view of the decision of this Court in the cases of Syed Sultan Shah v. Government of Baluchistan 1985 SCM R 1394 and Accountant-General, Pakistan v. Arbib Mukhtar Ahmad 1986 SCM R 1206 but the Service Tribunal completely omitted to consider this aspect of the case as well. The contentions raised in the above petitions relate to the omission on the part of Service Tribunal to consider the material available before it and the specific grounds taken in the appeal by the petitioners, which may not constitute a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. We, accordingly, enquired from the petitioners, if they could approach the Service Tribunal, for seeking redress against these omissions by the Tribunal. The petitioners in reply submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of S.A. Rizvi v. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission 1986 SCM R 965, the Service Tribunal has no power to review its own orders. It is true that there is no power of review available to the Tribunal as no provision for review exists in the Service Tribunals Act. However, in our view Rule 22 of the Service Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1974, can be invoked for correction of error arising out of the accidental slip or omission. In the case of Farid Khan v. WAPDA 1984 SCM R 603, the appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal as time- barred without considering the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act which was already filed by the appellant before the Court. The appellant in the above case invoked Rule 22 of the Service Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1974 before the Tribunal to recall its order dismissing the appeal as time-barred but the application of the appellant was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that it did not possess the jurisdiction to review its own order. The order of Tribunal dismissing the application under rule 22 was challenged before this Court and the order of Tribunal was set aside and the case was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the question of limitation afresh after hearing the parties. It may be mentioned here that the language of Rule 22 of the Service Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1974, is almost similar to that of section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, in our view all such errors which could be corrected under section 152, C.P.C. Should also fall within the scope of Rule 22 ibid for correction. We may also observe here that an appeal to this Court against the order of Service Tribunal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution lies only on a substantive question of law of public importance and therefore each and every order of Tribunal though it may suffer from same infirmity cannot be challenged before this Court. We, therefore, feel that suitable amendment is needed in the Service Tribunals Act to vest the Tribunal with the power to correct its own mistake in a case where it results in an obvious injustice to a party before it. In the circumstances of the present cases, we, therefore, leave it open to the appellants to approach the Service Tribunal under Rule 22 of the Service Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1974 and point out the omission made by the Tribunal while deciding their appeals. We would, however, refrain from making any observation, whether the error and omission pointed out by the petitioners in the above cases amounts to an omission or an accidental slip within the scope of Rule 22 ibid, as this will be for the Tribunal to decide these contents. With the above observations, the petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs.