MUHAMMAD AYUB SAJID HASHMI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had remanded the petitioner's claim for a selection grade in BPS-18 to the departmental authority rather than granting the relief directly. The petitioner, a civil servant on deputation, argued that the Tribunal should have mandated the grant of the selection grade given his qualifications and that the department was unnecessarily delaying the process. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter to the department instead of adjudicating the merits of the selection grade claim itself. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for departmental consideration was appropriate, as the power to grant selection grades rests with the departmental authority and requires specific procedural approval. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal correctly directed the department to hear the petitioner and decide the representation with cogent reasons. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, while directing the department to finalize the petitioner's case without further delay, emphasizing the necessity of timely administrative resolution.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the authority to grant a selection grade directly, or must it remand the matter to the departmental authority?
- Is the grant of a selection grade an automatic right for an eligible civil servant?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal direct a departmental authority to hear a civil servant and decide their representation within a specified timeframe?
- Section 4(1)(b), Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal:against the Judgment dated 5-7-1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No,166(L) of 1993 filed by the petitioner claiming selection grade in BPS-18 while on deputation in Pak. P.W.D. From the office of the Director-General, Audit (Works), Lahore, allowing the same in the following terms:- "3. Apparently, the case is for selection grade for which certain procedure is to be adopted and is to be approved by the competent Selection Board and it is not automatic. Therefore, if any person is eligible, then he has a legal right for consideration of selection grade. This Tribunal under section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has very limited scope to go into such question, but prima facie, the appellant has a case for grant of selection grade, for which the power rests with the departmental authority. Without adverting to merits or demerits of the case, we are inclined to refer the case to the departmental authority with the direction that the appellant be heard in person and his representation be decided within two months and pass appropriate order with cogent reasons as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 1991 SCM R 2330, and in case he is not satisfied, he may seek legal remedy as advised by law. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of."
' The petitioner, being aggrieved by the factum that the Tribunal instead of granting the relief itself has remanded the case to the department, has filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition, Mr. M. Anwar Sipra, learned A.S.C.' appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the petitioner was qualified to have been selected for BPS-18, the Tribunal should have directed the department to grant the above grade to the petitioner. His further submission was that the department, instead of implementing the Judgment of the Tribunal, attempted to delay the same by initiating some illegal enquiry, in which the petitioner has been exonerated.
3. Since the Tribunal has not passed any adverse order against the petitioner and as the department has been directed by the Tribunal to examine the case of the petitioner after hearing him, we are not inclined to grant leave. However, we may observe that the department should finalize the petitioner's case without any further delay. With the above observation, leave is refused.