ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning a departmental seniority dispute over respondent No. 4. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner was entitled to seniority over respondent No. 4, considering prior tribunal and Supreme Court adjudications determining that the respective cadres were equivalent and establishing respondent No. 4's seniority date based on his earlier appointment. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, noting that the seniority issue had already been conclusively resolved in earlier litigation between the same parties and that the petitioner's failure to timely challenge the departmental seniority list could not be plausibly excused. The court laid down the principle that previously litigated and settled seniority determinations between parties in service matters attain finality, and stale challenges based on delayed awareness of seniority lists cannot be entertained.
- Whether an employee can challenge a departmental seniority list years after its issuance without a plausible explanation for the delay?
- Does a prior adjudication by a Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court regarding cadre equivalence and seniority operate to bar subsequent re-litigation of the same issue between the same parties?
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Abdul Hamid Khan, petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal, against judgment dated 22-4-1993, of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") whereby his appeal against order dated 9-5-1992, placing Mr. Shaheen Iqbal respondent No,4, senior to him by the departmental authority, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner claims that he was selected/appointed as A.W.M. (Auxiliary) as trainee on 18-7- 1974, and his service was regularised on 8-9-1976, he ranked senior to respondent No,4 who was appointed as Assistant Manager (PR) on 19-8-1976, because the post of A.W.M. (P.R.) was not equivalent to the post of A.W.M. (Auxiliary) held by him.
3. The perusal of the impugned order, however, shows that this point stood already resolved on 23- 5-1990, in Appeal No,72(R)/1989, filed by respondent No,4 against the petitioner and others before the Tribunal, wherein it was held that Assistant Works Manager (Auxiliary) included Assistant Manager (P.R.) in the cadre and the seniority of respondent No,4 to be reckoned from the date of his appointment as Assistant Manager (P.R.) viz 19-8-1976 and not on 14-7-1981, the date when he was transferred to the anxillary cadre. This decision was maintained by this Court in Appeal No,1495 of 1990 on 23-9-1992.
4. The petitioner appears to have not challenged seniority list issued by the department on 15-6- 1980, wherein Shaheen Iqbal, respondent was shown senior to him with his date of appointment as 19-8-1976, and date of the appointment of the petitioner as 8-9-1976. On a question, as to why that seniority list was not challenged by him, the petitioner stated that he was not aware of that seniority list, as it was not served upon him. This explanation at this stage, hardly sounds plausible.
5. In our view, this is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal. In consequence, this petition fails and is dismissed.