FASIHUDDIN SIDDIQUI and 7 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
This matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal filed against a common judgment of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals regarding the determination of their inter se seniority. The petitioners, working as Superintendents in Pay Scale B-16 in the Pakistan Postal Services Corporation, were placed junior to private respondents in a seniority list issued pursuant to departmental directions. The core legal question concerned the correctness of the seniority list determined vis-a-vis direct recruits and departmental promotees in light of established Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly followed the guidelines and principles settled in the precedent case of Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdul Rasheed, and since no infirmity or failure to apply the laid-down rules was demonstrated in the petitioners' case, the petitions lacked merit. The court affirmed that seniority determinations complying with established binding precedents do not warrant interference, and consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether the Service Tribunal's determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and departmental promotees in accordance with established Supreme Court precedent is open to interference?
- Does a seniority list issued pursuant to binding judicial guidelines warrant leave to appeal when no failure to follow those rules is shown?
ORDER
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---This judgment disposes of Civil Petitions Nos. 677 of 1996, 678 of 1996, 679 of 1996, 680 of 1996, 681 of 1996, 682 of 1996, 683 of 1996 and 684 of 1996.
2. The petitioners were working as Superintendents in Pay Scale B-16 in Pakistan Postal Services Corporation. A seniority list, vide Memorandum dated 13-5-1996, was issued by respondent No,, 2, wherein the petitioners were shown junior to the private respondents. The petitioners, after exhausting their departmental remedies, filed their respective appeals before the Service Tribunal, which were dismissed, and hence the present petitions, for leave to appeal.
3. The Tribunal, vide its common judgment, dated 5-9-1996, came to a conclusion that the said seniority list was issued in pursuance of the earlier directions of the Tribunal, which was in consonance with the view taken by this Court in Muhammad Yousuf's case (1996 SCMR 1279), wherein the question of inter se seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits and departmental promotes had been settled. The Tribunal also referred to its own judgment in the case of Muhammad Boota (Appeal No,, 124(R) of 1993). The Tribunal, on the basis of the said judgments, came to a conclusion that the seniority in the case of the petitioners had been rightly determined by the said respondent.
4. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal has decided the case of the petitioners in accordance with the view taken by this Court in Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdul Rasheed (supra). The question in regard to inter se seniority between the promotees and direct appointments was to be determined in accordance with the guide-lines provided in the said judgment. No such ground appears to have been urged on behalf of the petitioners before the Tribunal indicating that the rule laid down by the said judgment of this Court had not been followed in the petitioners' case. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal.
5. Since no infirmity can be found in the judgment of the Tribunal, leave is refused.