ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION And Others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a departmental order placing respondent No.4 senior to the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the determination of inter se seniority between the petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Works Manager (Auxiliary), and respondent No.4, appointed as an Assistant Manager (P.R.), and whether the two posts belonged to the same cadre. The Supreme Court held that the question of seniority and cadre equivalence had already been conclusively resolved between the parties in prior litigation by the Tribunal and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and further noted that the petitioner failed to challenge the departmental seniority list issued earlier. Consequently, the Court upheld the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that matters of seniority and cadre determination conclusively settled by prior judicial adjudication cannot be reopened, and unexplained failure to challenge contemporaneous seniority lists precludes subsequent agitation.
- Whether the question of inter se seniority and cadre equivalence settled by prior judicial adjudication can be reopened in subsequent proceedings?
- Does the failure to challenge a departmental seniority list at the relevant time preclude a civil servant from agitating the seniority issue at a later stage?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a Service Tribunal judgment upholding a settled seniority position?
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.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHAUDHRY vs SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 1996 PLC (C.S.) 242
- Syed SHAUKAT HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 1995 PLC (C.S.) 21
- MUHAMMAD SHAMIM AKHTAR vs CHAIRMAN, C.B.R., ISLAMABAD And 18 Others 1994 PLC (C.S.) 1685