MASALJD JAMAL vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY
This appeal arose from a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for a move-over to BPS-19 on the procedural ground that he failed to file a departmental representation before approaching the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether such a representation was mandatory given a prior Tribunal judgment in the appellant's favor regarding the same subject matter. The Supreme Court observed that the department itself had acknowledged the appellant's entitlement to the move-over in official correspondence. Without determining the merits of the entitlement, the Court held that the matter required reconsideration by the departmental appellate authority. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case, directing the authority to decide the appellant's move-over to BPS-19 within three months. Crucially, the authority was ordered to exclude from consideration any adverse remarks in the appellant's Annual Confidential Reports that had not been previously communicated to him, in accordance with the earlier Tribunal judgment. This decision reinforces the principle that administrative bodies must adhere to prior judicial directions concerning fair evaluation practices in service matters.
- Is a departmental representation mandatory before approaching the Federal Service Tribunal when a prior judicial order already exists on the same issue?
- Can a departmental authority ignore previous judicial directions regarding the exclusion of uncommunicated adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Reports?
- Does the failure to file a departmental representation automatically bar an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
1. AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court, against the judgment dated 12- 12-1995 of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed in Appeal No,82-K of 1995, filed by the appellant claiming move-over to BPS-19 with effect from 1-12-1984, declining the sane on the ground that before filing of the above appeal the appellant failed to make departmental representation against the order of the Authority turning down his above claim. Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to, whether in view of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal dated 13-6-1993 passed in appellant's Appeal No,14-L of 1993., was it necessary to make such representation.
2. In support of the above appeal, the appellant is present in person. The thrust of his arguments is that in view of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal dated 13-6-1993 to the effect that the appellant's case for move-over be considered without taking into consideration the adverse remarks contained in the relevant A.C.Rs, which were not conveyed to him, the Authority could not have declined the above request of move-over. To reinforce the above submission he had referred to the Chief Administrative Officer's Letter No,E-12(31)/93/1083, dated 4-4-1996, wherein in paras. 3 and 4 the following has been stated:- "3. An analysis of the sequence of events would reveal that officer is entitled for move-over from BPS-18 to 19 with effect From 1-12-1984 in terms of Finance Division Memo. No,F.1(82)/R-385, dated 1- 1-1986, Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore decisions in Appeal No,14-L of 1993, dated 17-1-1993 and Appeal No,259-L, dated 27-8-1993. It appears that clear picture with respect to items mentioned in para. 2, sub-paras. (i)(v) were not provided to move-over committee in their meetings.
4. It is therefore, requested that:--
(i) Move-over of the office may be reconsidered and move-over committee may be apprised of the sequence of events detailed in para. 2 and be granted move-over from BPS-18 to 19 with effect from 1-12-1984.
(ii) President's Secretariat at Islamabad may be informed after the appellant Mr. Masaud Jamal, Deputy Director (Rtd.) be granted the aforesaid move-over."
3. We inquired from Mr. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the respondents, the reasons on which the Authority rejected the appellant's prayer for move-over. His reply was that the order does not give any reasons.
4. It seems that according to the department's own view the appellant is entitled to move-over, from BPS-18 to 19 with effect from 1-12-1984 for the reasons recorded in the Chief Administrative Officer's above letter. However, we would not like to make any comments as to the validity of the above statements. In our view it will be just and proper if the matter is remanded to the departmental appellate Authority with the direction to consider the case of the appellant for move-over to BPS- 19 without taking into consideration the adverse remarks contained in the relevant A.C.Rs, as was ordered by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 13-6-1993 in Appeal No,14-L of 1993. The departmental appellate Authority should also take into consideration the above letter of the Chief Administrative Officer. The appellant's case be finalized within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after hearing the appellant.
5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.