FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division and 2
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the withdrawal of a Selection Grade (B-16) previously granted to a Stenographer. The core legal question was whether the Director-General of the F.I.A. possessed the authority to review and recall a prior order granting a Selection Grade after the matter had already been adjudicated by the Service Tribunal in separate proceedings. The Supreme Court found that the Departmental Promotion Committee had previously cleared the respondent for the Selection Grade. When seniors challenged this, the Tribunal had already dismissed their appeals, confirming the propriety of the promotion process, and that decision had attained finality. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Director-General could not unilaterally re-open the issue or recall the promotion order once the dispute had been finally resolved by the Tribunal. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's judgment, ruling that the department was precluded from re-litigating a settled matter, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Can a departmental authority unilaterally review and recall a promotion order after the underlying dispute has been adjudicated and finalized by the Service Tribunal?
- Does the principle of finality of judicial decisions prevent a department from re-opening a service matter already decided by the Service Tribunal?
- Section 21, General Clauses Act 1897
ORDER
' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 4-7-1995 passed in Service Appeal No, 2(R) of 1995.
2. Facts of the case as mentioned in the petition briefly stated are that respondent No,1, Stenographer, and his colleague Muhammad Saddique were granted Selection Grade (B-16) vide order dated 25-10-1993 by the Director-General, F.I.A. Those senior to them made representation for review of the order on the ground that those who were given selection grade were junior to them.
Accordingly, a notice was served on respondent No,1 to show cause why order dated 25-10:4993 may not be recalled. After hearing him it was found that the order was liable to be withdrawn; hence, by order dated 24-7-1994 the above order was withdrawn and instead those who were seniors to them were granted the Selection Grade by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
3. Respondent No,1 feeling aggrieved filed a departmental appeal before the Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 4-7-1995 allowed the appeal on the ground tthat there was no legal basis for Director-General to review the previous order dated 25-1-1993; hence, the impugned order was set aside and the earlier one restored.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the judgment of the learned Tribunal we find no substance in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not advert to the salient feature of the case which prevailed with the learned Tribunal in setting aside the order of the Director-General referred to above on which the Tribunal had accepted the contention of the respondent and in recalling the order passed on review, in exercise of section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
5. It is on the record that the cases of respondent No, I and Muhammad Siddique were cleared by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 25-10-1993 while those who were senior appealed against it (Appeals Nos. 81 and 82 (R)/94) before the Tribunal on the ground that they being seniors should have been considered for grant of Selection Grade. The learned Tribunal after summoning the record considered the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee held that "the case of both the appellants before it had been placed before the Committee and after examining their A.C.Rs, etc. Out of them 2 persons junior to-them, who are respondents in these appeals, were given Selection Grade. The prayer in their appeals is that the department may be directed to consider their cases and in view of this situation fresh directions are not required". The learned Tribunal on such finding dismissed their appeals on 10-4-1994. The decision given was not challenged in any appeal further.
In view of the above the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the dispute had been finally resolved by the Tribunal in the appeal referred to above which had attained finality and the case of the respondent could not have been re-opened. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Tribunal and refused to grant leave, to appeal. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.