SAEED ASHRAF vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF NADEEM and 11 others
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the seniority of a civil servant. The respondent, initially appointed as a Deputy Secretary via lateral entry, faced termination and subsequent reinstatement. Following his reinstatement, he was promoted to BPS-20. Disputes arose regarding his placement in the gradation list of Secretariat Group Officers. The respondent challenged the gradation list circulated in 1993, seeking restoration of seniority based on previous service and precedents. The petitioners, including the Secretary of the Establishment Division, challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the appeal was time-barred as the respondent failed to challenge earlier gradation lists. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the respondent's appointment was never regularized due to his failure to clear the Federal Public Service Commission examination, thereby precluding him from claiming seniority over those who were regularized earlier under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the issues of limitation and the legal requirements for seniority and regularization under the relevant civil service laws.
- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred by time if the respondent failed to challenge earlier gradation lists?
- Can a civil servant claim seniority over regularized officers if their own appointment was not regularized due to failure to clear the Federal Public Service Commission examination?
- Section 12(a), Civil Servants Act 1973
- Section 8(4), Civil Servants Act 1973
ORDER
' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---These two petitions have been filed against one and the same judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 5-6-1994 in Appeal No, 18 (R) of 1994.
2. Respondent No, 1 was appointed as Deputy Secretary by way of Lateral Entry with effect from 17- 7-1974. His name appeared at Serial No,162 in (BPS-18) and Mir Bakhsh Zafar an officer above to him at Serial No, 161 and Anwar Ahmed was shown junior to him at serial No,
163. His services were terminated on 26-12-1977 but ultimately his termination order was set aside by the Tribunal on 12- 6-1982 and he was re-instated on 23-6-1982. He was promoted to BPS-20 from the date his junior was promoted i,e, 19-5-1983 vide Notification dated 19-5-1983.
3. A gradation list of Secretariat Group Officers was circulated by Establishment Division vide letter dated 13-12-1987 in which the respondent No,1 appeared at serial No,219 among the BPS-20 officers.
He made representation on 21-2-1988 for restoration of his correct position as was in the lower grade. His position was corrected and as such was placed above Mr. Nazir Ahmad whose name appeared in the gradation list at Serial No,
135. He then basing reliance on the judgment in Service Appeals Nos. 39(R) of 1982 and 301 (R) of 1985 and the judgment in Roshan All Mangi case, to whom seniority had been restored and corrected, challenged the gradation list circulated on 29-11-1993, which was allowed by the judgment. Leave to Appeal is prayed for by Saeed Ashraf (Petitioner in C.P. 381/94) and Secretary, Establishment Division (Petitioner in C.P. 415/94).
4. It is, inter alia, alleged that the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by time as the gradation list of 1975 was revised in the year 1981 against which respondent No, 1 did not file any representation when he was re-instated with all back benefits. That the respondent was promoted on the basis of such seniority and gradation list published in the year 1987 which too was not challenged. That on his failure to clear Federal Public Service Commission or by the precedent under section 12(a) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and he having failed in his lateral Entry Examination his appointment as Deputy Secretary was not regularised, therefore, he could not have claimed seniority over these who had been regularised earlier within the meaning of section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act.
' We grant leave to appeal to consider the above contentions.