Pakistan Case LawFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment, Islamabad and anothers Versus B.A. TABASSUM and 11 others
This matter originated from a civil petition filed by the Federal Government challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had restored the seniority of respondent No. 1 (B.A. Tabassum) as established in a 1990 seniority list. The core legal question was whether the Department could unilaterally revise a final seniority list three years after its issuance, particularly when no representations were filed against the initial ranking by aggrieved parties. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the Department failed to demonstrate that any officer junior to the respondent had challenged the 1990 list. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal Safvi, admitted he had not filed any representation against the 1990 list despite being ranked junior to the respondent. The Court held that in the absence of timely representations against a finalized seniority list, the Department lacks the authority to unilaterally revise such seniority after a significant lapse of time. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the finality of the original seniority determination.
- Can a government department unilaterally revise a finalized seniority list after a significant lapse of time?
- Does the failure to file a representation against a published seniority list preclude a later challenge to that seniority?
- Is a seniority list considered final if no representations are made against it by affected parties?
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---Civil Petition No, 252 of 1994 has been filed on behalf of the Federal Government through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad to call in question the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 13-2-1994 whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the service appeal of respondent No,1 (BA. Tabassum) and restored his seniority as determined in the final seniority list issued by the Department in 1990.
Respondent No,1 (BA. Tabassum) was assigned seniority at Serial No,5 in the seniority list which was issued by the Department in the year 1990. The learned Service Tribunal came to the conclusion that the seniority list issued by the Department was a final list against which no representation was made by any officer who were shown junior to respondent No,1. However, the said list was revised by the Department at its own in 1993 and in the comments filed before the learned Tribunal the Department took up the position that while determining the seniority of respondent No,1 in the list of PBS-19 Officers a mistake was committed whereby seniority of another officer of that grade namely, Mukhtar Ahmed Zahid, was overlooked. It was also mentioned in the comments that there was some irregularity in the promotion of respondent No,1 from Grade-16 to Grade-17 and from Grades-17 to 18, which was not noticed at the time of assigning seniority at Serial No,5 of the list issued in 1990. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out from the record before us any representation made by any of the officers shown junior to respondent No,1 in the gradation list of 1990 against assignment of seniority to respondent No,1 at Serial No,5 of the said list. The learned Tribunal therefore, rightly reached the conclusion that in the absence of representation against the assignment of seniority to respondent No,1 in the seniority list of 1990, the seniority of respondent No,1 could not be revised by the petitioners after lapse of about 3 years. We may also mention here that Muhammad Afzal Safvi who was one of the respondents before the Service Tribunal has also filed Civil Petition No,317 of 1994, challenging the order of Tribunal, mentioned above and has supported the petition filed by the Government. He also contends that the assignment of seniority to respondent No,1 in the gradation list of 1990 was wrong as he was senior to respondent No,1 while he was shown junior to him. However, when we enquired from Mr. Afzal whether he filed any representation against the seniority list issued by the petitioners in 1990, he admitted that he preferred no representation against the seniority list issued in 1990 in which he was shown junior to respondent No,l.
In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Service Tribunal. The petitions are without any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges on this bench
- Saiduzzaman Siddiqui789 judgments
- Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo485 judgments