ABDUL FATEH BHUTTO vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment by the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding seniority disputes within the Sindh Police and Anti-Corruption Establishment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was subjected to discrimination when respondents were granted seniority from their dates of appointment or promotion under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, while the petitioner was placed at the bottom of the seniority list upon his transfer to the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's placement at the bottom of the seniority list upon his change of cadre was consistent with established policy and rules, and the authority had correctly determined that no case of hardship existed. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's grievance, raised in 1999 regarding a 1996 placement, was time-barred. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal, affirming that seniority determinations based on cadre transfer policies, when applied consistently, do not constitute discrimination, and that stale claims regarding seniority are liable to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
- Does the placement of a civil servant at the bottom of a seniority list upon a voluntary change of cadre constitute discrimination?
- Can a civil servant challenge a seniority list placement after a significant delay, rendering the appeal time-barred?
- Does the exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 allow for the retrospective adjustment of seniority in a manner that overrides established cadre transfer policies?
- Section 24, Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973
1. ' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-5-2001 passed by learned Sindh Service Tribunal at Karachi whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed.
2. ' Facts of the case are not necessary to be narrated here as the same have been stated in the impugned judgment.
3. ' We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. ' Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents Nos.4 to .7 have been given seniority above him which have been reckoned from the date of appointment/promotion in exercise of powers conferred by section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 while he has been refused, which amounted to discrimination consequently he was entitled to have seniority counted from the date of his appointment thereby he would become senior to said respondents.
5. We do not find substance and merit in the said contention. The petitioner was working in the executive cadre of Sindh Police and after his change in cadre to Anti-Corruption Establishment he was placed at the bottom of seniority of Inspectors on the date of joining Anti-Corruption Establishment. His case was decided as per policy and rules. His case was considered not to be a case or hardship by the Authority concerned. We find that no case for discrimination is made out considering also the fact that he was placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the Inspectors on his joining in 1996 whereas he agitated his grievance in 1999 by filing the appeal which on the face of record was time-barred.
6. ' In the circumstances there is no merit in this petition consequently leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.