ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that the seniority and/ or inter-se-seniority is, in fact, determined based on total length of service; therefore, the actual period of service must be kept in mind.
It said that Civil Service Seniority Rules are primarily turned out to be a ground rule for the progression of government employees, seminal for career trajectories and promotion, while confirming the criteria of merit-cum-fitness. This legal scaffold is meant to ensure impartiality, fair-mindedness, and transparency in the process, not only for determining the seniority but also as a pathway for fostering promotion and consistency, along with the right and remedies to resolve seniority disputes among the employees.
It also said that the Sindh Civil Servant Seniority Rules give precedence to initial appointment determined on the date of regular appointment, and if recruited in the same batch, then seniority is classified according to the date of regular appointment.
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, dismissed the appeals of the Chief Secretary, Sindh, against the order of the Sindh Service Tribunal (SST), Karachi, dated June 2, 2022.
The judgment said that if the seniority list was to be revised, revisited, or upset come what may, it was an onerous obligation of the competent authority/ concerned department to confront the issue to all persons who were likely to be affected and deprived of their seniority, but without following due process, it was sheer contravention of Article 10-A of the 1973 Constitution.
The crux of the case is that the respondents were appointed as Assistant Inspector of Police (ASI) in Sindh Police (Hyderabad, Sukkur &Larkana Range) in March 1990. However, on 24.02.1991, these appointees were discharged from service vide office order dated 24.02.1991 on the ground that their appointments were politically motivated.
In November 1991 & January/ February 1992, some of the discharged ASIs were reappointed by means of fresh appointment orders. After a fresh appointment, all such appointees were making hectic efforts to seek continuity in the length of service for seniority only on the basis of the initial appointment made in the year of 1990.
The Inspector General of Police (IGP), Sindh, on January 3, 1994, issued an office order/ notification whereby 130 ASIs were reinstated in service with effect from joining earlier in 1990, with the order that such reinstated ASIs will not be entitled to any financial benefits but will be accommodated to their original seniority carried by them in the year 1990.
The Sindh police authorities, on the basis of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gul Hassan Jatoi & others’ case, prepared a combined seniority list of the Inspectors, which was finally issued in July 2016.
Some police officials aggrieved by the seniority list submitted their complaints. Thereafter, the IGP, Sindh, made certain changes and issued another seniority list on 12.04.2019, which in effect upset the seniority position of the respondents by changing their initial date of appointment from March 1990 to November 1991 and January/ February 1992.
The respondents filed service appeals before the SST, which were allowed, vide consolidated impugned judgment. It ruled that the appellants who approached the SST were enjoying seniority with effect from 1990 (the date of original appointments) till 2019 under the valid order of IGP, Sindh, but the withdrawal of seniority without issuing any show cause notice cannot be treated as lawful.
The SC judgment noted that, according to the notification issued by the department with the concurrence of the Sindh Chief Minister, the department subcommittee constituted to determine the seniority of respondents had recommended their reinstatement after due scrutiny. It also said that the ASIs were initially appointed after fulfilling all codal formalities; therefore, discharge from service of such recruiters was not found safe and sound; hence they were reinstated accordingly in service from the date of initial joining.
It further said that this factum was neither denied nor was any logical or sound justification placed before the Court as to why, in the case of reinstatement, the original seniority should not be reckoned and restored.
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.