M.A. RASHID RANA vs SECRETARY, HOME, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Other
This matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against decisions of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the seniority and promotion of Deputy Superintendents of Police. The office raised objections regarding considerable delays rendering the petitions time-barred by hundreds of days. The petitioner argued that he was a necessary party in the service appeal proceedings filed by the respondents, which resulted in retrospective confirmation of seniority adversely affecting his promotion prospects, and that departmental remedies would be futile as the impugned notification explicitly implemented the Service Tribunal's judgment. Conversely, the respondents contended that the Tribunal's decision was a judgment in personam rather than in rem, rendering the non-joinder immaterial and leaving departmental remedies open. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the petitioner was a necessary party in the Service Tribunal proceedings and whether the impugned decisions constitute judgments in rem or in personam, while leaving the question of limitation open for determination at the hearing of the appeals.
- Whether it was necessary to join the petitioner as a necessary party in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal?
- Whether decisions of the Service Tribunal are judgments in rem or in personam?
- Does a notification implementing a Service Tribunal's judgment render further departmental remedies redundant?
ORDER
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---Office has raised objection that these petitions are the-barred inasmuch as Civil Petition 480 of 1995, Civil Petition 499 of 1995 and Civil Petition 500 of 1995 by 421 days, Civil Petition 501 of 1995 by 841 days and Civil Petition 498 of 1995 by 358 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in these petitions petitioner is common and his grievance is that he was not joined as necessary party in the proceedings of service appeals which were filed by the respondents naked therein and allowed by confirmation of seniority of D.S.Ps. In their favour with retrospective effect on account of acts of gallantry and extraordinary devotion to duty as envisaged in the circular of I.-G. Police, dated 8-6-1973. It is further submitted that petitioner was due for promotion on 1-7-1980 but in Civil Petition 499 of 1995, respondent No.5 Zulfiqar Ahmad Malik has been given by Service Tribunal anti-dated confirmation from 1-7-1984 to 16-1-1978 with the jump of six and half years with the result that seniority of the petitioner and his opportunity of promotion are seriously jeopardized.
2. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents supporting impugned decisions of the Service Tribunal has submitted that non joining of petitioner as a party before the Service Tribunal is not material for the reason that decision of Service Tribunal is judgment in personam and not judgment in rem hence is not binding on him and he can file departmental appeal when seniority list is published and if his grievance is not redressed then can file service appeal before the Service Tribune. In this context Mr- Samdani, counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to notification dated 28-5-1995 (at page 75 of paper-book of Civil Petition 499 of 1995). In which it is mentioned specifically that seniority of D.S.P Zulfiqar Ahmad is settled in pursuance of the Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment dated 14-3-1995, hence departmental proceedings and availing remedy before the Service Tribunal would not serve any useful purpose. In the circumstances claim is reiterated that petitioner should have been joined in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal as necessary party.
3. We grant leave to examine firstly whether it was necessary to join the petitioner as necessary party in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal and secondly whether decisions of Service Tribunal impugned before us are Judgments in rem or in personam. We leave open question of limitation to be determined at the the of' hearing of appeals.