MUHAMMAD SALEEM-II, STENOGRAPHER vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division and others
These petitions for leave to appeal were filed by a Stenographer of the Establishment Division challenging two separate judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 17-7-1995. In the first matter, the petitioner claimed he was wrongly bypassed for promotion to the post of Private Secretary (B-17). The Tribunal found that the petitioner ranked at Serial No. 16 in the seniority list and that all private respondents promoted ahead of him were senior to him. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner conceded that no junior person had been promoted. In the second matter, the petitioner claimed an enhanced special pay of Rs. 150 instead of Rs. 120 per month. The Tribunal had dismissed this claim on the ground that the petitioner’s entitlement to special pay had already been adjudicated and settled at Rs. 120 per month in his earlier appeal decided on 1-2-1995, barring re-litigation of the same issue. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on both counts, holding that no ground for interference was established, and accordingly dismissed both petitions, refusing leave to appeal.
- Can a civil servant maintain a claim for promotion where no person junior to him in the relevant seniority list has been promoted?
- Can an employee re-agitate a claim for enhanced special pay before the Service Tribunal when the exact entitlement was already determined in a previously decided appeal?
ORDER
' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---Both the abovementioned two petitions are filed by Muhammad Saleem-II a Stenographer of Establishment Division to call in question two separate judgments of Federal Service Tribunal dated 17-7-1995 rendered in two Service Appeals filed by him
2. In. The first 'case the petitioner's grievance before the learned Tribunal was that he was not considered for promotion as a Private Secretary (B-17). The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence before it came to the conclusion that the name of the petitioner appeared in the seniority list at serial No,16 while private respondents in the appeal were all senior to him. We have specifically asked the petitioner, who is appearing in person in the above cases, whether any person junior to him has been promoted as Private Secretary (B-17). The petitioner replied in the negative. In view of the above stated facts the learned Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as without any cause.
3. In the second petition, the petitioner's grievance before the Tribunal was that he should be granted special pay of Rs,150 instead of Rs,120 as was allowed in the case of his juniors. The learned Tribunal refused to interfere in the case on the ground that in the earlier Appeal No,463(R) of 1994 filed by the petitioner, he had prayed for grant of a special pay which was allowed to him at the rate of Rs,120 per month vide judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 1-2-1995. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that in view of the decision in the earlier appeal by the Tribunal where under the petitioner was allowed only Rs,120 as a special pay instead of Rs,150 as claimed by him, it was not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the same matter in the appeal again before the learned Tribunal. The judgment of the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and no case is made out for interference by us.
' The petitions are accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.