Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and 39
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal and upheld his promotion to the cadre of Superintendent with effect from 22-5-1989. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal was justified in rendering a subsequent finding regarding the petitioner's promotion date that allegedly conflicted with its earlier decision dated 2-9-1993, which had recognized his seniority from an earlier date and protected his promotion status. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the contradictory findings of the Tribunal require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the subsequent finding of the Tribunal conflicted with its previous order and whether a vested right was adversely affected. The key principle laid down is that contradictory adjudications by a service tribunal regarding seniority and promotion dates require examination by the appellate court to protect established rights.
- Whether a service tribunal can render a subsequent decision that conflicts with its earlier final order regarding a civil servant's seniority and promotion?
- Does an unchallenged promotion order create a vested right that cannot be subsequently reversed by the departmental authority or the tribunal?
- When does a service matter warrant the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 26-4-1994 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the service appeal of the petitioner and held the promotion of the petitioner with effect from 22-5-1989 in the cadre of Superintendent having been made validly by the departmental authority.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the earlier decision of the learned Tribunal dated 2-9-1993 wherein the learned Tribunal had held that the petitioner was entitled to the seniority in the cadre of Assistant from 6-1-1982 and as the order promoting the petitioner as Superintendent (BPS-16) with effect from 21-4-1985 was not challenged by any other civil servant it attained finality and could not be reversed as a vested right was created in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel accordingly contended that having held so in its previous order dated 2-9- 1993 the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the promotion of the petitioner in the cadre of Superintendent (BPS-16) with effect from 22-5-1989 was justified. According to the learned counsel the subsequent finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner was rightly shown as promoted to the cadre of Superintendent with effect from 22-5-1989 directly came in conflict with the earlier decision of the Tribunal dated 2-9-1993. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires examination and we, accordingly grant leave to appeal to consider the same.
Judges on this bench
- Saiduzzaman Siddiqui789 judgments
- Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo485 judgments