ABDUL RASHID KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM AKHTAR and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had allowed appeals filed by the respondent challenging the petitioner's seniority determination. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could lawfully count their prior ad hoc service period with the Engineering University towards their seniority in the department, specifically through a relaxation of the relevant rules. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no case on the merits. The Court determined that allowing an employee to count ad hoc service towards seniority in the department through a relaxation of rules is neither legal nor proper. Consequently, the Court found that no legal question of general importance arose from the impugned judgment and refused to grant leave to appeal. The decision reinforces the principle that seniority benefits cannot be derived from ad hoc service periods via rule relaxation, as established in previous jurisprudence.
- Can an employee count a period of ad hoc service with a university towards their seniority in a government department?
- Is the relaxation of rules to allow the counting of ad hoc service for seniority purposes legally permissible?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--- Both these petitions will be disposed of by this order. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal by which two appeals filed by the respondent between the same parties were allowed.
2. The respondent had challenged order, dated 4th March 1989, whereby the petitioner was allowed to count the ad hoc period of service totaling 2 years 2 months and 14 days with the Engineering University for the purposes of determining the seniority in relaxation of the relevant rules. It seems that the petitioner filed another appeal against the order of the same date and to the same effect which was endorsed for information on 9th August, 1989.
3. The learned counsel contended that as the appeal against the first order was barred by time, respondent No,1 in both the petitions maneuvered issuance of the order for the second time with a view to entitle them to file another appeal within time. The main ground seems to be that the appeal was barred by time. We do not find from the judgment of the Tribunal that plea of limitation had been raised, argued and determined. Leaving aside the question of limitation which was not noticed by the Tribunal or purposely ignored the fact remains that on merits the petitioner has no case. The petitioner cannot be allowed in relaxation of rules which itself is not legal and proper to count the period of service as an ad hoc employee with the University towards the seniority in the department. Reference can be made to Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar v. Government of the Punjab PLD 1991 SC 35 and Ahsanullah A. Memon v. Government of Sindh 1993 SCM R 982. In the facts and circumstances of the case no legal question of general importance arises from the impugned judgment. Leave is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Ch. LIAQUAT ALI and another vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1477