NADEEM AHSAN, D.S., RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE, LAHORE and 5 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Communication, Islamabad and 6 others
This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal arising from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the determination of seniority in BPS-17 within the Postal Group. The petitioners, who were probationers from the 1985 competitive examination, were appointed in 1987 to replace candidates who failed to join. Their appointment letters contained a specific condition stating they would rank senior to the probationers of the 1986 competitive examination. A dispute arose when the department placed departmental promotees, who were promoted in 1987, senior to the petitioners. The petitioners argued that their appointment letter guaranteed seniority over 1986 probationers, which should preclude them from being junior to those promoted in 1987. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the specific seniority guarantee in the petitioners' appointment letters regarding 1986 probationers also entitled them to claim seniority over departmental promotees who joined in 1986 and 1987. The Court held that this issue is of general public importance affecting numerous government employees, necessitating a definitive legal interpretation of seniority rules in the context of direct recruits versus departmental promotees.
- Does a specific seniority guarantee in an appointment letter regarding a particular batch of probationers automatically grant seniority over departmental promotees?
- Under civil service rules, do departmental promotees rank senior to direct recruits when both are inducted in the same year?
- Can a condition in an appointment letter regarding seniority relative to one group be interpreted to establish seniority relative to a different category of employees?
ORDER
1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---This order will govern the disposal of abovementioned 3 petitions for leave to appeal which arise out of the same impugned order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 20-3-1995.
2. ' The petitioners in the above petitions alongwith several others appeared in the competitive examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission (F.P.S.C.) in the year 1985. Out of the successful candidates 10 probationers of 1985 competitive examination were nominated for service in the Postal Group. However, out of them only 3 probationers joined the postal service while remaining 7 did not join. The F.P.S.C. Nominated the petitioners, who were also probationers of 1985, in place of those 7 nominees who were originally nominated for postal service but they did not join, in the year 1987. The offer of appointment issued to the petitioners contained the following conditions:--
(vii) Your appointment will take effect from the date of jointing the Civil Service Academy, Lahore.
3. However, your seniority will not be disturbed i,e, you will rank senior to the probationers of Competitive Examination, 1986."
4. ' It appears that a dispute arose between the petitioners and the private respondents in the above 3 petitions with regard to their seniority in BPS-17. Respondent No,4 Muhammad Masood Shoukat (in C.P.L.A. 387/95) was promoted in BPS-17 on acting charge on 9-2-1982 and his acting charge was regularized on 17-12-1987. The respondent No,4 in C.P.L.A. No,389/95 (S.M. Hasnain) was promoted in BP$-17 on acting charge on 2-8-1985 and his appointment was regularized on 17-9- 1987. Similarly, respondent No,5 in C.P.L.A. No,388/95 (Samina Suleman) was also promoted in BPS- 17 on acting charge basis on 5-8-1985 and her appointment was regularised on 26-8-1989.
5. Respondent No,4 in C.P.L.A. No,388/95 was however, given presumptive promotion in BPS-17 alongwith the promotees of 1987 by the competent Authority, vide order dated 7-8-1991. Since the actual induction of the petitioner in postaal service was also in the year 1987, they objected to the seniority list prepared by the department in which private respondents in the above 3 petitions were shown senior to them. The contention of the petitioners before the department as well as before the Service Tribunal was that in their appointment letter they were clearly given assurance that their seniority will not be disturbed and that they shall rank senior to the probationers of competitive examination 1986. It was, accordingly, contended by the petitioners that they being senior to those who were inducted in the service as probationers of Competitive Examination 1986, they could not be placed junior to those who were inducted in the postal service by promotion in the year 1987.
6. ' Mr. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, the learned counsel for the caveator in C.P.L.A. No,388/95 on the other hand opposed the grant of leave in the above petition and contended that the condition contained in the offer of appointment dated 27-10-1987 relied by the petitioners only resolved the question of seniority between the probationers of 1985 and 1986 and this condition has no bearing on the seniority of the petitioners qua the departmental promotees. It is, accordingly, contended by the learned counsel for the caveator that the petitioners and the private respondents in C.P.L.A.
7. No,388/95 having been promoted in the same year, under the rules of seniority the departmental promotees would rank senior to the direct recruits. We are inclined to grant leave in the above cases to consider the contention of the petitioners, whether by virtue of declaring the petitioners senior to the probationers of 1986 they were also entitled to claim seniority against those who joined postal service in the years 1986 and 1987. The above proposition of law appears to be of general importance and is likely to affect large number of employees in the Government service.
8. There is an application for grant of status quo order in these cases. We are not inclined to grant status quo at this stage. However, it is clarified that any promotion made meanwhile will be subject to the result of these appeals.