Pakistan Case LawSyed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH and anothers Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had declined the petitioners' miscellaneous applications alleging non-compliance with a previous Tribunal order. The petitioners, having previously secured a remand order from the Tribunal for reconsideration of their promotion cases, alleged that the authorities failed to comply by citing a lack of vacancies as the reason for denying promotion. The petitioners contended that their juniors had been promoted, bypassing them without justification, and that the Tribunal's remand order required an examination of whether this bypassing was factually justified. They argued that the respondents' plea of 'no vacancy' effectively negated the Tribunal's earlier judgment and that the Tribunal failed to address this aspect in its subsequent order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Tribunal failed to properly evaluate the petitioners' grievance regarding being bypassed for promotion and whether the respondents' reliance on the lack of vacancies was a valid compliance with the Tribunal's remand directions.
- Whether a plea of 'no vacancy' constitutes valid compliance with a Tribunal's order to reconsider promotion cases?
- Does a Tribunal's failure to address the specific grievance of being bypassed for promotion in a remand proceeding warrant Supreme Court intervention?
- Can authorities cite a lack of vacancies to deny promotion after a Tribunal has remanded the case for reconsideration of promotion eligibility?
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above two petitions as they involve common question of law. They are directed against the judgments dated 16-12-1993 and 20-11-1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeals No, 73 and 74(L)/92 filed by the present two petitioners in the above two petitions, declining the petitioners' Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 81 of 1992 and 82 of 1993 filed by them in the above disposed of two appeals, which were disposed of by judgment dated 22-4-1993 and the cases were remanded to the authority for reconsideration of their cases for promotion. The above miscellaneous petitions were filed alleging therein that the respondents had not complied with the above judgment of the Tribunal inasmuch as that the petitioners were not promoted on the ground that there was no vacancy. The petitioners have, therefore, filed present petitions for leave to appeal.
2.In support of the above petition Chaudhry Mushtaq Masood, learned Advocate Supreme Court; appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently urged that the grievance of the petitioners in the above service appeals was that their juniors were promoted by bypassing them without justifiable reason and, therefore, when the above cases were remanded to the respondents, they were required to examine the question, whether factually the petitioners were bypassed without any justifiable reason.
It has further been urged by him that the plea taken by the respondents that there was no vacancy against which the petitioners can be promoted is a plea which negates the above judgment of the Tribunal.
It has also been argued by him that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the above aspects.
3.We are inclined to grant leave to consider the above contentions. Leave is accordingly granted.
Judges on this bench
- Ajmal Mian2,984 judgments
- Wali Muhammad Khan585 judgments