1 
CA 825/15 etc. 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.825, 826, 1020 AND 1021 OF 2015 
(Against judgment dated 12.5.2015 of the Federal Service 
Tribunal, 
Islamabad 
passed 
in 
Service 
Appeal 
No.983(R)CS/15, 984(R)CS/15, 442(P)CS/11) 
 
 
Dr. Ehsan-ul-Haq Khan  
 
 
 
(In CA 825/15) 
Dr. Maqbool Ahmed 
 
 
 
 
(In CA 826/15) 
Dr. Muhammad Ilyas 
 
 
 
 
(In CA 1020/15) 
Dr. Abdul Majid Khan 
 
 
 
 
(In CA 1021/15) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… 
Appellants 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Federation of Pakistan and others 
 
… 
Respondents  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(In all cases) 
For the appellants: 
Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Sr.ASC 
(In CA 825 & 826/15) 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(In CA 1020/15)  
Mr. Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
(In CA 1021/15)  
Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed Raja, ASC. 
For the respondents: 
Syed Nayab Hussain Gardezi, ASC 
No.1 and 2  
 
Qari Abdul Rasheed, AOR. 
Date of hearing 
 
03.11.2016 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.-The respondents No.3, 4 (who is 
appellant in connected CA No.1021/15) and respondent No.5, were 
selected by Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) as Veterinary 
Officer (BS-17) in the year 1990, and were so appointed the same 
year. The FPSC as per merit placed respondent No.3 and 4 senior to 
respondent No.5. However, in the seniority list, issued by the 
department on 15.10.1992, the above order of seniority was altered 
and respondent No.3 and 4 were placed junior to respondent No.5. It 
was on the basis of the said seniority list dated 15.10.1992, that in 
the year 1995, respondent No.5, was considered for promotion to BS-
2 
CA 825/15 etc. 
18,and was accordingly promoted by the departmental promotion 
committee.  
2. 
 
In July 1999, respondent No.3, challenged the seniority 
of respondent No.5, before the Federal Service Tribunal, through 
Appeal bearing No.835(L) of 1999, and though he also sought to be 
promoted to BS-18 in place of respondent No.5,however, the learned 
Tribunal through its judgment dated 10.12.2002, directed the official 
respondents to determine the seniority of the parties strictly in 
accordance with the seniority assigned to them by the FPSC, and to 
place the respondent No.3 at the position, as was assigned to him by 
FPSC,but declined to pass any order regarding the promotion of 
respondent No.5. No appeal was preferred against the said judgment, 
the same thus attained finality. 
3. 
 
On 06.2.2000, while the above appeal was pending,FPSC 
invited applications for the post of Quarantine Officer (BS-18). The 
appellant, and respondents No.3,4, and 6 (who is appellant in CA 
No.826 of 2015), applied for the post. The appellant and respondent 
No.6 passed the test, but respondents No.3 and 4 failed. The 
appellant and respondent No.6 were thus,on 13.12.2007, appointed 
as Quarantine Officer (BS-18). Having been appointed subsequent to 
respondent No.5, both were ranked junior to the said respondent. It 
may be crucial to note here that although, the appellant and 
respondent No.6 had been appointed as above, during the pendency 
of the aforesaid appeal No.835(L)/99,however they were not 
impleaded as respondents in the said proceedings nor was any relief 
thereby sought against them. 
4. 
 
In compliance of the tribunal’s afore noted judgment 
dated 10.12.2002, and at the request of respondents No.3 and 4, the 
respondent 
department 
ultimately 
issued 
final 
seniority 
list 
3 
CA 825/15 etc. 
pertaining to BS-17 Officers on 17.8.2006, whereby respondents No.3 
and 4, were placed at positions senior to respondent No.5. 
5. 
 
In the year 2007, departmental promotion committee 
promoted respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to BS-18, whereupon they claimed 
seniority over respondent No.5 in BS-18 also. On 12.10.2010, a 
Provisional Seniority List was issued whereby respondent No.3 and 4 
were placed as senior to respondent No.5,and to the appellant and 
respondent 
No.6 
also. 
The 
appellant 
and 
the 
respondent 
No.6,challenged the said list before the learned Lahore High Court. 
The High Court through its judgment dated 23.11.2010, directed the 
department to issue the seniority list afresh after hearing the parties. 
In pursuance of which order a seniority list dated 6.9.2011,placing 
the appellant and respondent No.6 senior to respondent No.3 and 
4,and keeping them all senior to respondent No.5 was issued. Such 
arrangement was challenged by respondent No.5. However, his 
objection was rejected and the position maintained. The respondent 
No.5 thus approached the Federal Service Tribunal, but the tribunal 
suspended the proceedings on the ground that similar issue was sub-
judice before the High Court of Sindh, where respondents No.3 and 4 
had challenged the aforesaid seniority list through a constitution 
petition. 
The 
said 
petition, 
was 
through 
judgment 
dated 
08.3.2013,allowed by the High Court directing that fresh seniority list 
raking respondent Nos.3 and 4 senior to respondent No.5 as well as 
the appellant and respondent No.6 be issued. 
6. 
 
The suspension of proceedings in the appeal before the 
Tribunal, was challenged by respondent No.5 before this Court 
through Civil Petition bearing CPLA No.955 of 2013, whereas the 
judgment dated 08.3.2013, was challenged by the appellant through 
CPLA No.705 of 2013. Both the petitions for leave to appeal were,by 
4 
CA 825/15 etc. 
consent,converted into appeals and allowed through order dated 
28.6.2013, whereby the impugned judgment of the learned High 
Court was set-aside with direction that the petition filed by 
respondent Nos.3 and 4 be remitted to the Services Tribunal and be 
treated by the Tribunal as a service appeal, and the same and so also 
respondent No.5’s appeal pending before the Tribunal be decided 
expeditiously. 
7. 
 
It was in terms of the impugned judgment that the above 
three appeals were disposed of by the learned Tribunal whereby, 
although the Tribunal declined to backtrack the promotion of 
respondent No.5, yet held the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be senior to 
respondent No.5. The Tribunal further held that since respondent 
No.3 was, as per the merit list assigned by FPSC, senior to 
respondent No.5 and thus deserved to be promoted in place of the 
latter,the said respondent should be granted promotion by creating a 
superannuery post so that he may be entitled to the benefits of 
promotion from the date respondent No.5 was promoted. 
8. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
perused the record of the case. 
9. 
 
Admittedly, the seniority list dated 15.10.1992, whereby 
the seniority assigned by FPSC to respondent No.3, 4 and 5 was 
altered by ranking respondent No.5 senior to respondent Nos.3 and 
4, was upon circulation, duly signed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 
without any protest. It was on the basis of the said seniority list that 
respondent No.5 was considered for promotion and was thus 
promoted to BS-18 in the year 1996. It was only after such promotion 
and in fact about three years thereafter that respondent No.3 filed an 
appeal before the Tribunal in July 1999 whereby he challenged the 
seniority assigned to respondent No.5 through the aforesaid seniority 
5 
CA 825/15 etc. 
list dated 15.10.1992, and also challenged his promotion to BS-18. 
However, the Tribunal through its judgment dated 10.12.2002 
though directed the official respondents to rectify the seniority list 
but declined to pass any order regarding the promotion of respondent 
No.5 for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent No.3 felt content with 
the order and did not pursue his further relief regarding the said 
promotion. Even respondent No.4 who too had filed an appeal before 
the Tribunal, being appeal No.786 of 1999 in this regard, in view of 
the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal, did not press his appeal. As 
noted earlier also, although it was during the pendency of respondent 
No.3’s appeal that the appellant and respondent No.6 were directly 
inducted in BS-18, however, neither were they impleaded in the 
appeal nor was any relief sought against them by respondent No.3. It 
is also crucial to note that in the examination held for the post to 
which appellant and respondent No.6 have been appointed, the 
respondent No.3 and 4 also participated but failed. The respondent 
Nos.3 and 4 never challenged the appointment of the appellant and 
respondent No.6 and it was atleast about seven years of the said 
appointment, that respondent No.3 and 4 sought seniority over 
appellant and respondent No.6 also, which in the facts and 
circumstances of the case they were/are not entitled to as appellant 
and respondent No.6 were appointed in BS-18 about seven years 
prior to the promotion of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the said cadre, 
and had in fact failed in their attempt for their appointment along 
with the appellant and respondent No.6. 
10. 
 
It may be recalled that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 
signed the seniority list dated 15.10.1992 without any protest, and it 
was, (as can be read from the memo of appeal bearing 
No.835(L)/1999, filed by respondent No.3 before the Tribunal), as late 
6 
CA 825/15 etc. 
as on 20.6.1996 that representation against the aforesaid seniority 
list was made by the said respondent, more than three years after the 
date of the seniority listdated 15.10.1992, and thus it was on the 
basis of the said seniority list, that respondent No.5 was considered 
for promotion and was promoted to BS-18 vide letter dated 
17.9.1996. Though through the judgment dated 10.10.2002, the 
Tribunal directed the department to revive the seniority of the parties 
as was assigned by the FPSC, but declined to pass any order with 
regard to the promotion of respondent No.3 from the date the 
respondent No.5 was promoted. No appeal was filed against the said 
judgment and thus the promotion of respondent No.5 to BS-18 prior 
to respondent Nos.3 and 4, remained intact, and in the meanwhile 
the appellant and respondent No.6 were, in the year 2000 selected by 
the FPSC for the post of Quarantine Officer (BS-18) and were so 
appointed accordingly. It was only in December 2007 that the 
respondent Nos.3 and 4 were promoted to BS-18. Indeed in terms of 
proviso (3) of Rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, 
respondent Nos.3 and 4, being senior to respondent No.5, were, upon 
promotion to BS-18, entitled to their original seniority but having 
remained indolent in the matter and not having challenged the 
change in the seniority list for more than three years as noted above, 
and further having remained satisfied with the judgment of the 
Tribunal and by not challenging the same, has contributed to the 
creation of an anomalous situation, where, in the event they are now 
ranked senior to respondent No.5 in BS-18,the appellant and 
respondent No.6, who having been appointed in BS-18 more than 
three years later than the promotion of respondent No.5, are certainly 
junior to the said respondents, and are senior to respondent Nos.3 
and 4 by virtue of the latter’s promotion in BS-18 subsequent to their 
7 
CA 825/15 etc. 
appointment, shall be ranked junior to respondent No.3 and 4 which 
would be wholly unfair and unjust, and certainly contrary to the 
provision of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 
1973, which prescribes that seniority in a post, service of cadre, to 
which a civil servant is promoted shall take effect from the date of 
regular appointment to that post. Furthermore, the Tribunal’s 
judgment dated 10.12.2002, whereby it declined relief of promotion 
to respondent No.3 from the date the respondent No.5 was promoted, 
operates as res-judicata in respect of the said issue, and no such 
relief could have subsequently been granted, as done through the 
impugned judgment. In any event, as noted earlier, since although it 
was during the pendency of appeal No.835(L)/1999, that the 
appellant and respondent No.6 were appointed in BS-18, but 
respondent No.3 neither joined them in the appeal, nor sought any 
relief against them and therefore they cannot now seek to be ranked 
senior to them through any means. More so, when, as noted earlier, 
the said two respondents had participated in the selection process 
along with the appellant and respondent No.6, but had failed.  
11. 
 
In view of the foregoing, we would disposeof the 
captioned appeals by directing that the seniority of the appellant and 
respondents Nos.3,4, 5 and 6 be assigned in the order of their 
promotions/appointments in BPS-18. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Announced in open Court on ___________ 
At Islamabad  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
8 
CA 825/15 etc. 
 
‘NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
(Aamir Sh.)