Supreme Court of Pakistan

C.P.L.A. No.339-K of 2009

Before Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Anwar Zaheer Jamali, JJ

AMANULLAH SHAH ……………………………………………………. Petitioner

versus
Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Sindh ………………. Respondents

Facts:
1. Amanullah Shah, an employee in BPS-11 with the Agriculture Engineering Wing of
the Agriculture Department Government of Sindh, has preferred this civil petition for
leave to appeal to seek leave of the Court to agitate his grievance against the judgment
dated 27-2-2009 in service Appeal No. 14 of 2008, passed by Sindh Service Tribunal
at Karachi
2. That the case of the petitioner is that he a diploma-holder in Associate Engineering,
was appointed on an ad hoc basis in BPS-11 as Supervisor on 7-2-1988. Such
appointment of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated, 26-11-1989. After
that, the private respondents in this petition, who held Bachelor's Degree in
Engineering, were also appointed in the same capacity and pay scale from September
1993 onwards

3. That to maintain the seniority of all the employees in BPS-11 in the department,
including Diploma-holders and Graduate Engineers a combined seniority list was
prepared every year, to which none of the parties to this petition has any grievance.
Such a list was lastly prepared on 1-1-2000, wherein the names of the petitioner,
private respondents, and other employees in the same grade/pay scale were properly
mentioned according to their respective seniority and none has any grievance

4. That in the year 2004, the petitioner had also obtained a bachelor's Degree in
Agriculture Engineering on 1-1-2006, a segregated seniority list of Graduate
Supervisors in BPS-11, wording in the Agriculture Engineering Wing Department,
was issued, wherein the name of the petitioner was rightly placed at Serial No.3. This
list was not called into question by any of the person named in the said seniority list,
including all the private respondents. However, after it, for no reason. On 1-5-2006,
another list of Graduate Supervisors (BPS-11) was issued, wherein the name of the
present petitioner was found missing
5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by such illegal action of the departmental authorities,
challenged the same before the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, vide Appeal No. 14
of 2008, which was to his dismay, dismissed by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated,
27-2-2009
6. That with the observation that in the seniority of Graduate Unit Supervisors, the
1
Page

petitioner was entitled to seniority from the date of his obtaining a Bachelor's Degree

1|Page
 in Engineering and not from the date of his original appointment on regular i.e. 26-11-
1989
7. The government of Sindh which exercise was undertaken for the first time in. the year
2006, has nothing to do with the notification dated, 11-8-2000, which relates to the
fixation of the quota of fresh appointments and promotions amongst the employees in
BPS-11, holding Degree in Civil/Mechanical or Agricultural Engineering and, those
holding diploma of Associate Engineering/B. Tech Engineering

Application of laws
1. section 8(4) of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act
1973)
Seniority in a post, service, or cadre to which a civil servant is
promoted shall take effect from the date of regular appointment of
such
civil servant to that post, service, or cadre:
Provided that civil servants who are selected for promotion to a
higher post in one batch shall, on their promotion to the higher post,
retain their inter-se-seniority as in the lower post,

2. Rule 10(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation, and Seniority) Rule,
1975
Subject to the provision of rule 11, the seniority of a civil servant shall
be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment,

Case Study Conclusion & Views:

The post of Unit Supervisor (BPS-11), the appointment of the petitioner was regularized on
26-11-1989, while the appointments of private respondents against the same post were made
in the year 1993 onwards and for this purpose up to the year 2000, combined seniority list
was prepared without discrimination of the requisite qualification. From The year 2001 to
2005, admittedly, no seniority list was prepared either combined or segregated showing the
inter se seniority of the petitioner and private respondents. On 1-1-2006, when the segregated
seniority list of Graduate Supervisor (BPS-11) working in the Agriculture Engineering Wing
was prepared, for the first time, the petitioner having graduated in Agriculture Engineering in
the year 2004, was placed at serial No. 3 of the said seniority list. However, his seniority was
dislodged by a subsequent seniority list dated, 1-5-2006, wherein his name was found
missing from the said list. when for the first time, a segregated seniority list was prepared, the
name of the petitioner was placed at serial No.3 of the seniority list of Graduate Supervisors,
but the authenticity of this seniority list was not challenged by any of the respondents. Even
in the seniority list of Graduate Supervisor for the year 2007, the name of the petitioner was
again placed at serial No.3 of the list, keeping in view the date of his regular appointment as
Unit Supervisor (BPS-11). However, ignoring the statutory provisions of the Act 1973 and
the Rules 1975, as referred to above, in the revised seniority list dated, 17-9-2007, the name
of the petitioner was shown below the names of private respondents. Effecting the inter se
2

seniority of the petitioner and private respondents, for no fault on his part, rather penalizing
Page

him for his further academic qualification is misleading misconceived, and devoid of merits,

2|Page
more so as it violates the statutory provision, which, given its clear language, entitles the
petitioner for promotion to a higher post from the date of his regular appointment.

Decision as judgment:
In the above circumstances, the notification cannot be used as a tool in favor of the private
respondents to disturb and dislodge the seniority of the petitioner in the category of Graduate
Supervisors, as admittedly he has passed his Bachelor of Agriculture Engineering
Examination in the year 2004 i.e. much before the preparation of segregated seniority list of
Graduate Supervisors and Diploma-holder Supervisors.
In our opinion, the notification referred to above cannot be given overriding effect to the
statutory provisions of law, which mandate that seniority to a post, service, or cadre, to which
a civil servant is promoted shall take effect from the date of regular appointment of such civil
servant to the post, service or cadre. There is no other factual or legal controversy involved in
this matter, except the one discussed above and in this regard, we are of the clear view that
statutory provision regarding seniority will have an overriding effect on the notification
dated, 11-8-2000 to protect the seniority of the petitioner.
In the above discussion, this civil petition for leave to appeal is converted into an appeal and
allowed.
The impugned judgment dated 27-2-2009 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and further relief
of E seniority is granted to the petitioner in terms of the prayer made by him in appeal before
the Tribunal.
S.A.K./A-59/SC
Appeal accepted.

3
Page

3|Page