IMTIAZ AHMAD SADIQ, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI CORRUPTION, HEADQUARTER,LAHORE And Another vs Rao SHAMSHER ALI KHAN And 2 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 13-11-1993, which allowed the appeal of respondent no. 1, holding him eligible for promotion and mover in BS-20. The core legal questions examined by the Supreme Court include the competency of the service tribunal appeal in light of the bar under section 4(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 regarding fitness for promotion, whether the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering promotions instead of remanding the matter to the competent authority, and whether the impugned order adversely affected the petitioners in violation of the principles of natural justice given their absence from the proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions and ordered the continuation of the interim order pending final disposal.
- Whether an appeal is competent before the Punjab Service Tribunal against an order determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be promoted to a higher post or grade in view of section 4(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974?
- Does a service tribunal have the jurisdiction to order the promotion of a civil servant rather than allowing the competent authority to consider their case along with other eligible officers?
- Whether an order passed by a service tribunal adversely affecting other civil servants is sustainable if passed in their absence and without affording them an opportunity of being heard?
- Section 4(b), Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
ORDER
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J. ---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 13-11-1993 whereby appeal of respondent NO. I has been allowed holding that "he was an officer in his own right in BS-19 arid quite eligible for promotion in BS-20 against the post available to him on his turn in that scale. He shall also be entitled to moveover in BS-20 subject to usual conditions".
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find it a fit case to grant leave to appeal to examine, inter alia:-
(1) Whether the appeal filed by respondent No. l before the Punjab Service Tribunal was at all competent in view of the bar contained in section 4(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 whereunder no appeal lies to the Tribunal against the order of the competent Authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade;
(2) Whether the order of the learned Tribunal amounted to ordering the promotion of respondent No.1 to Grade-19 and Grade-20 and if so, whether the learned Tribunal had the jurisdiction to order such promotions rather than allowing the competent authority to consider the case of respondent No.1 alongwith other elegible officers;
(3) Whether the impugned order of the Service Tribunal has adversely affected the petitioners and whether such an order could be passed in their absence and without affording them opportunity of being heard.
2. The interim order already passed by this Court on 16-1-1994 shall continue pending the final disposal of the appeal.