IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
(Review Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, CJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA 
 
 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITIONS NO.43-K TO 45-K OF 2012 IN 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.189-K TO 191-K OF 2011, CIVIL 
REVIEW PETITIONS NO.2-K & 3-K OF 2013 IN CIVIL 
APPEAL NO.189-K OF 2011, CIVIL REIVEW PETITIONS 
NO.4-K & 5-K OF 2013 IN CIVIL APPEALS NO.190-K & 191-
K OF 2011, CIVIL REVIEW PETITIONS NO.6-K & 7-K OF 
2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.189-K OF 2011, C.M.A. NO.2238 
OF 2014 IN CIVIL REIVEW PETITION NIL OF 2014 IN 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.189-K OF 2011, C.MA. NO.2242 OF 2014 
IN CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NIL OF 2014 IN CIVIL 
APPEAL NO.190-K OF 2011, C.M.A. NO.2246 OF 2014 IN 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NIL OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL 
NO.191-K OF 2011_______________________________________ 
(On review against the judgment dated 06.11.2012, passed by this Court in C.As. 
No.189-K to 191-K/2011 
 
CRP.43-K/2012 in 
CA.189-K/2011 
 Chairman Federal Board of Revenue 
and others Vs. Iqbal Hussain Shaikh 
 
 
 
CRP.44-K/2012 in 
CA.190-K/2011 
 Chairman Federal Board of Revenue 
and others Vs. Dr. Abdul Lateef 
 
 
 
CRP.45-K/2012 in 
CA.191-K/2011 
 Chairman Federal Board of Revenue 
and others Vs. Abdul Hameed 
Anjum 
 
 
 
CRP.2-K/2013 in 
CA.189-K/2011 
 Aisha Farooq and others Vs. Iqbal 
Hussain Shaikh and others 
 
 
 
CRP.3-K/2013 in 
CA.189-K/2011 
 Abbas 
Ahmed 
and 
others 
Vs. 
Chairman Federal Board of Revenue 
and others 
 
 
 
CRP.4-K/2013 in 
CA.190-K/2011 
 Aisha Farooq and others Vs. Dr. 
Abdul Lateef and others 
 
 
 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 2 - 
 
CRP.5-K/2013 in 
CA.191-K/2011 
 Aisha Farooq and others Vs. Abdul 
Hameed Anjum and others 
 
CRP.6-K/2014 in  
CA.189-K/2011 
 Shazia 
Abid 
and 
others 
Vs. 
Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue 
and others 
 
 
 
CRP.7-K/2014 in  
CA.189-K/2011 
 Abdul Wahid Uqaily and others Vs. 
Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue 
and others 
 
 
 
CMA.2238/2014 in 
CRP Nil/2014 in 
CA.189-K/2011 
 Irfan Raza, Secretary, FBR and 
others Vs. Chairman, Federal Board 
of Revenue and others 
 
 
 
CMA.2242/2014 in 
CRP Nil/2014 in 
CA.190-K/2011 
 Irfan Raza, Secretary, FBR and 
others Vs. Chairman, Federal Board 
of Revenue and others 
 
 
 
CMA.2246/2014 in 
CRP.Nil/2014 in 
CA.191-K/2011 
 Irfan Raza, Secretary, FBR and 
others Vs. Chairman, Federal Board 
of Revenue and others 
 
 
For the Petitioner (s) 
(in CRPs.43-K to 45-K/2012) 
 
: Mr. Akhtar Ali Mahmud, ASC 
For the Respondent (s) 
(in CRPs.43-K to 45-K/2012) 
 
: Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi, Sr. ASC 
For the Petitioner (s) 
(in CRP.2-K/2013) 
 
: Mr. Tariq Aziz, ASC/AOR 
For Respondent No.1 
(in CRP.2-K/2013) 
 
: Abdul Qadir Khan, ASC 
For Respondent No.2 
(in CRP.2-K/2013) 
: Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr. ASC 
Mr. M.A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
 
 
Respondent No.3 
(in CRP.2-K/2013) 
: N.R. 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner (s)  
(in CRP.3-K/2013) 
: Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr. ASC a/w 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
For Respondent No.1 
(in CRP.3-K/2013) 
: Ms. Misbah Gulnar Sharif, ASC (FBR) 
 
 
 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 3 - 
 
Respondents No.2-3 
(in CRP.3-K/2013) 
: N.R. 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner (s) 
(in CRP.4-K/2013) 
: Mr. Tariq Aziz, ASC/AOR 
 
 
 
For Respondent No.1 
(in CRP.4-K/2013) 
: Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, ASC 
 
 
 
For Respondent No.2 
(in CRP.4-K/2013) 
: Ms. Misbah Gulnar Sharif, ASC 
 
 
 
Respondent No.3 
(in CRP.4-K/2013) 
 
: N.R. 
For the Petitioner (s) 
(in CRP.5-K/2013) 
: Mr. Tariq Aziz, ASC/AOR 
 
 
 
For Respondent No.1 
(in CRP.5-K/2013) 
: Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, ASC 
 
 
 
For Respondent No.2 
(in CRP.5-K/2013) 
: Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr. ASC a/w 
Mr. M.A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
 
 
Respondent No.3 
(in CRP.5-K/2013) 
: N.R. 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner (s) 
(in CRP.6-K/2014) 
 
: Mr. Tariq Aziz, ASC/AOR 
For Respondent No.1 
(in CRP.6-K/2014) 
 
: Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr. ASC 
Respondents No.2 & 3 
(in CRP.6-K/2014) 
 
: N.R. 
For the Petitioner (s) 
(in CRP.7-K/2014) 
 
: Mr. Tariq Aziz, ASC/AOR 
For Respondent No.1 
(in CRP.7-K/2014) 
 
: Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr. ASC 
Respondents No.2 & 3 
(in CRP.7-K/2014) 
: N.R. 
 
 
 
For the Applicant (s) 
(in 
CMAs.2238, 
2242 
and 
2246/2014 in CRPs Nil/2014) 
: Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
For Respondent No.1 
(in 
CMAs.2238, 
2242 
and 
2246/2014 in CRPs Nil/2014) 
 
: Hafiz. S.A. Rehman, Sr. ASC 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 4 - 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 11.11.2015 
 
  
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
  
 
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.- Through this judgment, 
it is proposed to decide Civil Review Petitions Nos.43-K to 
45-K of 2012, 2-K to 5-K of 2013, 6-K & 7-K of 2014, C.M.A. 
No.2238 of 2014 in CRP No.NIL  of 2014 in Civil Appeal 
No.189-K of 2011, C.MA. No.2242 of 2014 in CRP No.NIL of 
2014 in Civil Appeal No.190-K of 2011, C.M.A. No.2246 of 
2014 in CRP No.NIL of 2014 in Civil Appeal No.191-K of 
2011, which are directed against the Judgment of this Court 
dated 06.11.2012, whereby Civil Appeals No.189-K to 191-K 
were allowed.  
2. 
 
The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the 
lis at hand are that in the year 1993, the Federal Board of 
Revenue (the then Central Board of Revenue) in an effort to 
expand its Income Tax Administration decided to increase 
the strength of its Income Tax Assessing Officers through 
posting of suitable Officers in BPS-17 on deputation from 
other Departments. Consequently, at the initiative of the 
Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), the Establishment 
Division issued a letter dated 18.12.1993 to the Secretaries 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 5 - 
 
of the various Departments seeking Officers from other 
Occupational Groups to be initially appointed on 
deputation under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act,  1973 
with the FBR. It was also notified that such Officers were 
likely to be considered for induction in the Income Tax 
Group. Apparently, in this behalf, options were invited 
from various Officers. It appears that the private 
Respondent Iqbal Hussain Sheikh, who was originally 
inducted in service in 1986 through 14th CTP (Common 
Training Program) in the Postal Group, private Respondent 
Dr. Abdul Lateef inducted in 1990 through 18th CTP in the 
Information Group and the private Respondent Abdul 
Hameed Anjum also inducted in 1990 through 19th CTP in 
the Information Group exercised their options and were 
among the 72 Officers whose cases for posting on 
deputation in the Income Tax Group were considered by a 
Joint Committee constituted in this behalf. The said Joint 
Committee vide Order dated 19.02.1994 decided that such 
Officers would undergo intensive Professional Training at 
the Directorate of Training (Income Tax), Lahore, for a 
period of four to six months; pass Departmental 
examinations within two years after completing the 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 6 - 
 
training; would continue to have their lien in their parent 
Departments for a maximum period of five years; and shall 
rank lowest viz-a-viz the Officers of the Income Tax Group 
in BPS-17. However, their inter se seniority in their own 
Cadre and Group would be maintained in their parent 
Departments. The said decision was approved by the 
Establishment Division vide Order dated 22.02.1994. 
Consequently, private Respondents (Iqbal Hussain Sheikh, 
Dr. Abdul Lateef and Abdul Hameed Anjum) were placed 
at the disposal of the FBR vide Notification dated 
19.03.1994 and posted as Assistant Commissioners of 
Income Tax (Under Training) in the Directorate of Training, 
Lahore.  
3. 
 
In the years that followed the question of 
permanent induction of the Officers from other Groups 
into the Income Tax Group remained unresolved, though it 
appears, 
various 
communications 
were 
exchanged. 
Eventually, on 19.12.2000, the FBR made the offer to the 
Officers on deputation for their induction into the Income 
Tax Group. Such offer was required to be accepted by or 
before the end of December, 2000. The private Respondents 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 7 - 
 
(Iqbal Hussain Sheikh, Dr. Abdul Lateef and Abdul 
Hameed Anjum) 
exercised 
their 
options 
for their 
permanent induction in the Income Tax Group. However, 
no formal Order, in this behalf, was passed. In the above 
backdrop, the said private Respondents (Iqbal Hussain 
Sheikh, Dr. Abdul Lateef and Abdul Hameed Anjum) 
along with other Officers similarly placed invoked the 
Constitutional Jurisdiction of the learned High Court of 
Sindh on 15.01.2002 seeking their induction in the Income 
Tax Department. The said Constitutional Petitions were 
dismissed by the learned High Court of Sindh vide 
judgment 
dated 10.05.2002. 
Aggrieved, 
the private 
Respondents (Iqbal Hussain Sheikh, Dr. Abdul Lateef and 
Abdul Hameed Anjum) along with others filed a Civil 
Petition for Leave to Appeal before this Court, which was 
converted into Appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No.1745 2002 and 
was allowed vide judgment dated 29.09.2009, reported as 
Abdul Hameed Anjum and others v. Federation of Pakistan 
and others (PLD 2010 SC 857). 
 
The aforesaid judgment of this Court was given effect 
to, whereafter the seniority of the present Respondents 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 8 - 
 
(Iqbal Hussain Sheikh, Dr. Abdul Lateef and Abdul 
Hameed Anjum) was fixe d vide Notification dated 
11.8.2010 and their seniority was reckoned from 01.01.2001. 
The 
said 
private 
Respondents 
filed 
Departmental 
representations, which were rejected 
on 08.10.2010 
whereafter they filed Service Appeals bearing No.153(K)CS 
to 155(K)CS of 2010 before the learned Federal Service 
Tribunal, Karachi, which were dismissed vide judgment 
dated 01.02.2011. Aggrieved, the said private Respondents 
(Iqbal Hussain Sheikh, Dr. Abdul Lateef and Abdul 
Hameed Anjum) filed Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal 
No.264-K to 266-K of 2011 before this Court against the 
aforesaid judgment of the learned Service Tribunal in 
which leave to appeal was granted vide Order dated 
29.02.2011 and the same were converted into Appeals i.e. 
Civil Appeals No.189-K to 191-K of 2011. This Court vide 
judgment under review dated 06.11.2012 allowed the said 
Civil Appeals and directed the FBR to notify 26th March 
1994, as the date from which the seniority of the Appellants 
would be reckoned.  
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 9 - 
 
4. 
 
Civil Review Petitions Nos.43-K to 45-K of 2012 
have been filed by the Chairman, FBR against the aforesaid 
judgment, while Civil  Review Petitions Nos.2-K to 5-K of 
2013 and 6-K & 7-K of 2014 have been filed on behalf of the 
Officers of the Income Tax Group, who were not a party 
before this Court in Civil Appeals Nos.189-K to 191-K of 
2011 but whose seniority was likely to be affected, as a 
consequence of the judgment under review.  
5. 
 
It is contended by the learned counsel for the 
Review Petitioners that by way of the judgment under 
review, the provisions of Rule 4 of the Civil Servants 
(Seniority) Rules 1993, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules 
of 1993” applicable to the facts of the case have been 
misinterpreted and misapplied. It is added that the 
judgments of this Court, the dicta whereof were not 
attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case have not 
only been relied upon incorrectly but also misinterpreted.  
Furthermore, the judgment under review runs contrary not 
only to Rule 4 of the Rules of 1993 but also to the law as 
laid down in various judgments of this Court, hence is 
liable to be reviewed. In support of their contentions, the 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 10 - 
 
learned counsels relied upon the judgments reported as (1) 
S. Habib Haider v. The Secretary, General Ministry of 
Interior, Islamabad and 14 others (1991 SCMR 1505), (2) 
Major Retd Muhammad Matlub Khan, Deputy Director, 
Intelligence Bureau, Islamabad etc v. Government of 
Pakistan etc (NLR 1993 Service 33), (3) Muhammad Arshad 
Sultan Section Officer, Cabinet Division, Islamabad and 
another v. Prime Minister of Pakistan, Islamabad and 
others (PLD 1996 SC 771), (4)   Mehr Sher Muhammad and 
others v. Federation of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 185), (5) S. M. 
Farooq and others v. Muhammad Yar Khan and others 
(1999 SCMR 1039), (6) Din Muhammad v. Director-General, 
Pakistan Post Office, Islamabad and 20 others (2003 SCMR 
333), (7) Hamid-ul-Hussain and others v. Federation of 
Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and 
others (2006 SCMR 832), (8) Justice Khurshid Anwar 
Bhinder and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another 
(PLD 2010 SC 483), (9) Abdul Hameed Anjum and others v. 
Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2010 SC 857), (10) 
Captain (R) Khalid Zaman v. Government of Pakistan 
through Secretary, Establishment Division and others (NLR 
2011 Service 38)/(2011 SCMR 99),  (11) Iqbal Hussain 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 11 - 
 
Sheikh and two others v. Chairman, Federal Board of 
Revenue and another (2013 SCMR 281), (12) Contempt 
Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh and others 
(2013 SCMR 1752), and (13) Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and 
others v. Province of Sindh and others (2015 SCMR 456).  
6. 
 
The learned counsel for the private Respondents 
controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the Review 
Petitioners and contended that all the Civil Review 
Petitions are barred by limitation, hence liable to be 
dismissed on this ground alone. It is further added that the 
Civil Review Petitions filed by the private Respondents, 
who were not a party to the Civil Appeals whereupon the 
judgment under review was passed, are not maintainable 
having been filed by strangers. It was contended that the 
judgment under review does not suffer from any error 
apparent from the face of the record and no such error has 
been pointed out on behalf of the review Petitioners. It is 
added that the Review Jurisdiction of this Court is not 
synonymous with its Appellate Jurisdiction and this Court 
cannot sit in appeal on its own judgments. The learned 
counsel for the Respondents further contended that even 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 12 - 
 
otherwise the judgment under review is in line with the 
law laid down in the earlier judgments of this Court, which 
have not only been mentioned but also the extracts whereof 
have been quoted in extenso, in the judgment under review 
therefore the Review Petitions are liable to the dismissed. 
The learned counsel for the Respondents relied upon the 
judgments reported as (1) Muhammad Arshad Sutlan, 
Section Officer Cabinet Division, Islamabad and another v. 
Prime Minister of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (PLD 
1996 SC 771), (2) Mehr Sher Muhammad and others v. 
Federation of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 185) and (3) Din 
Muhammad v. Director General, Pakistan Post Office, 
Islamabad and 20 others (2003 SCMR 333) (4) Justice 
Khurshid Anwar Bhinder and others v. Federation of 
Pakistan and another (PLD 2010 SC 483), (5) S. Masood 
Abbas Rizvi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, 
Establishment 
and 
others 
(2014 
SCMR 
799), 
(6) 
Muhammad Aslam Awan, Advocate Supreme Court v. 
Federation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 1289).  
7. 
 
Heard and the available record perused.  
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 13 - 
 
8. 
 
Before proceeding to dwell upon the arguments 
canvassed at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties, 
it would perhaps be appropriate to recapitulate the 
relevant facts of the case so that both, the rival contentions 
of the learned counsels and the judgment under review can 
be examined in their true perspective, while exercising our 
limited Review Jurisdiction.  
9. 
 
The private Respondents, it is an admitted fact, 
were initially recruited, appointed and were serving in the 
Postal Group and in the Information Group. Pursuant to 
the decision of structural expansion of the Income Tax 
Group of the FBR, it was decided to solicit options from the 
Officers serving in various other Departments, for joining 
the Income Tax Group on deputation. In terms of the 
aforesaid decision, a letter was issued by the Establishment 
Division on 18.12.1993 to the Secretaries of the various 
Departments. The private Respondents expressed their 
willingness to join the Income Tax Group. Their case was 
considered by the Joint Committee constituted in this 
behalf and 72 Officers including the private Respondents 
vide Order dated 19.02.1994  of the said Joint Committee 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 14 - 
 
were selected subject to, inter alia, the conditions that they 
would 
undergo 
training, 
pass 
the 
Departmental 
examination and would serve on deputation with the 
Income Tax Group for initial  period of five years and were 
likely to be absorbed and inducted in the said Group. It 
was also clarified that such Officers would rank lower than 
the Officers already serving in the Income Tax Group in the 
same grade i.e. BPS-17. The said decision of the Joint 
Committee was also approved by the Establishment 
Division vide Order dated 22.2.1994.  
10. 
 
It is in the above back ground the private 
Respondents were appointed on deputation in the Income 
Tax Group vide Notification dated 19.3.1994. After the 
lapse of the initial period of  five years a formal decision 
was eventually taken to seek option from the said Officers 
serving on deputation in the Income Tax Group for their 
absorption and induction in the said Group. However, the 
said decision was not implemented and some of such 
Officers including the private Respondents sought their 
absorption and induction in the Income Tax Group by 
unsuccessfully invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 15 - 
 
the learned High Court. The Constitution Petitions filed in 
this behalf were dismissed  vide judgment dated 10.5.2002, 
whereafter, the private Respondents  along with others 
filed Civil Petitions before this Court, which were 
eventually decided in their favour vide judgment dated 
29.9.2009 reported as Abdul Hameed Anjum and others v. 
Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2010 SC 857), in the 
terms reproduced herein below:- 
(i) 
This appeal is accepted on behlaf of 
appellants Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6; the appeal on 
behalf of other appellants is dismsised as 
not pressed.  
(ii) 
Appellants Nos.1, 2, 3  and 6 are declared 
to have been inducted w.e.f. 01.1.2001 in 
the Income Tax Group of CBR pursaunt to 
the acceptance of offers by them under 
CBR’s 
decision 
dated 
21.7.2000; 
The 
appellants Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 are also 
declared 
to 
have 
been 
accoridngly 
absorbed in the Income Tax Group; 
(iii) 
Establishment 
Division 
O.M. 
dated 
25.1.2001 is declared to have been issued 
without any lawful authority hence of no 
legal effect.  
(iv) 
For the purpose of record and for all other 
requirements, 
respondents 
shall 
issue 
necessary notificitons, orders or memos in 
terms of the declaration above granted to 
appelalnts Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6. 
(v) 
Costs througout shall be paid by the 
respondents to appellants Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6. 
(empahsis supplied) 
 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 16 - 
 
11. 
 
Subsequently, the private Respondents sought 
fixation of their seniority in the Income Tax Group from the 
date when they initially joined Income Tax Group on 
deputation from their parent Departments. Upon failure of 
the representation/Departmental appeals and subsequent 
dismissal of their appeals by the learned Federal Service 
Tribunal, the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked, which 
culminated into the judgment under review.  
12.   
It is an admitted fact that the Petitioners are civil 
servants, who were initially sent on deputation from their 
parent Departments to the Income Tax Group wherein they 
were eventually absorbed and inducted.  
13. 
 
The question of seniority both inter se the 
present Respondents as well as with respect to other 
Officers, who were already serving in the Income Tax 
Group is covered by Rule 4 of the Rules of 1993. For the 
ease of reference the said Rule is reproduced hereunder:- 
“4.         Seniority on appointment by transfer. - 
Seniority in a service, cadre or post to which a civil 
servant is appointed by transfer shall take effect 
from the date of regular appointment to the 
service, cadre or post : 
            
Provided that-  
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 17 - 
 
(a)      persons belonging to the same 
service, cadre or post selected for 
appointment by transfer to a service 
cadre or post in one batch shall, on their 
appointment, take inter se seniority in 
the order of their date of regular 
appointment in their previous service, 
cadre or post; and 
(b)      persons belonging to different 
service, cadre or posts selected for 
appointment by transfer in one batch 
shall take their inter se seniority in the 
order of the date of their regular 
appointment to the post which they 
were holding before such appointment 
and, where such date is the same, the 
person older in age shall rank senior.”  
 
14. 
 
A perusal of the judgment under review reveals 
that it is primarily based on three previous judgments of 
this Court reported as (1) Muhammad Arshad Sutlan, 
Section Officer Cabinet Division, Islamabad and another v. 
Prime Minister of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (PLD 
1996 SC 771), (2) Mehr Sher Muhammad and others v. 
Federation of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 185) and (3) Din 
Muhammad v. Director General, Pakistan Post Office, 
Islamabad and 20 others (2003 SCMR 333). The law laid 
down in the aforesaid judgments must necessarily be 
examined in the context of the aforesaid admitted facts and 
the applicable law i.e. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1993 referred 
to above.  
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 18 - 
 
15. 
 
With the help of the learned counsel for the 
parties, we have examined the judgments reported as 
Muhammad Arshad Sultan (Supra) (PLD 1997 SC 771). 
After trawling through the entire judgment, we find that 
there is no reference, at all, to the Rules of 1993. The said  
judgment is entirely based on the interpretation of the Esta. 
Code, various Office Memorandums, (OMs) periodically 
issued   and some statutory provisions and the Rules other 
than the Rules of 1993, hence the basis of the decision of the 
said judgment is not the Rule 4 of the Rules of 1993, which 
is admittedly applicable to the case at hand. It is in the 
above perspective, primarily on the interpretation of said 
Office 
Memorandum 
and 
the 
Esta 
Code, 
certain 
observations were made by this Court, which have been 
quoted in extenso in the judgment under review. However, 
eventually, through the said judgment the matter was 
remanded for fixation of the seniority of the Applicants 
therein. The interpretation of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1993 
admittedly applicable in the instant cases is conspicuous by 
its absence.  
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 19 - 
 
16. 
 
The second judgment whereupon the judgment 
under review is based, is the case of Mehr Sher 
Muhammad and others (Supra).  It appears that pursuant to 
the judgment passed in Muhammad Arshad Sultan, Section 
Officer and another (Supra), the seniority of some of the 
Officers of OMG was fixed. However, the other Officers, 
feeling aggrieved, invoked the jurisdiction of the learned 
Service Tribunal and eventually to this Court, which 
culminated into the judgment passed in Mehr Sher 
Muhammad and others (Supra). We have also examined 
the said judgment and find that the law laid down therein, 
which has been relied upon and quoted in extenso in the 
judgment under review is again based upon the 
interpretation of the various Office Memorandums, the 
Esta Code and Practice of the Department. However, it 
appears that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1993 
were brought to the notice of this Court. In respect whereof, 
it was observed as follows:- 
“14. … We would like to elucidate here 
that Federal Government has now framed 
Civil Servants Seniority Rules vide S.R.O. 
No.163(1)/93, dated 28th February, 1993 
(PLD 1993 Central Statutes, page 281) 
which are prospective in character and 
would supersede all practices, instructions 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 20 - 
 
and Office Memorandums in the sphere of 
fixing the seniority of civil servants from 
the date of its promulgation and all other 
methods existing till then shall cease to be 
operative.” 
 
 
(emphasis supplied) 
 
17. 
  
The aforesaid observations make it clear and 
obvious that the law laid down in this judgment is not 
applicable to the subsequent cases to which Rule 4 of the 
Rules of 1993 is applicable. The said Rules of 1993 were not 
applied as the same could not be given retrospective effect. 
In this case, the entire process commenced on 18.12.1993, 
when the Establishment Division called for options from 
the Officers of the various Departments to join the Income 
Tax Group on deputation, while the Rules of 1993 came 
into force on 28.02.1993. Thus, at all material events in the 
instant case from the exercise of the option to the reckoning 
of the seniority and the dispute in relation thereto occurred 
after the Rules of 1993 had come into force and were 
covered squarely by Rule 4 thereof. Hence, there was no 
question of retrospective application involved in the instant 
case unlike the judgment of Mehr Sher Muhammad and 
others (Supra) (1999 SCMR 185).  
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 21 - 
 
18. 
 
In view of the above, it is clear and obvious, as 
has been held in the case of Mehr Sher Muhammad and 
others (Supra) in no uncertain terms that the said judgment 
and the judgment of Muhammad Arshad Sultan (Supra) 
(PLD 1996 SC 771) at best pertained to the various Office 
Memorandums, the Esta Code and the Departmental 
Practice and are not relevant for the purpose of 
interpretation of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1993. In fact, the said 
judgments and the law laid down therein are not relevant 
for adjudication of a case pertaining to the seniority of the 
deputationists arising after coming into force the Rules of 
1993 including the cases at hand, hence, could not form the 
basis of the judgment under review.   
19. 
 
It appears that this aspect of the matter escaped 
the attention of this Court, while erroneously passing the 
judgment under review and holding that the private 
Respondents were entitled to the seniority from the date 
earlier than the date of their formal induction into the 
Income Tax Group. This error unfortunately materially, 
significantly and adversely affects the adjudicatory process 
resulting in an obvious error of law.  
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 22 - 
 
20. 
 
Rule 4 of the Rules of 1993, which has been 
reproduced hereinabove on its plain reading leaves no 
room for doubt that the seniority of persons on deputation 
is to be reckoned from the date of their regular 
appointment in the transferee Group or Department and 
not from their posting or transfer or any earlier date. The 
wording in the said provision is clear and obvious and 
leaves little room for any other contrary interpretation.  
21. 
 
The said Rule 4 of the Rules of 1993 has come up 
for interpretation before this Court in a number of cases. In 
the case reported as S.M. Farooq and others v. Muhammad 
Yar Khan  and others (1999 SCMR 1039), it has been held as 
follows:- 
“12. … Besides rule 4 of Civil Servants Seniority 
Rules, 1993 promulgated by Notification S.R.O. 
(1)/93, dated 28th February, 1993 lays down that 
seniority in service, cadre or post by transfer shall 
take effect from the date of regular appointment 
of civil servant to said service, cadre, or post. 
Therefore, necessary corollary would be that such 
civil servant on his appointment by transfer 
would rank junior to those who were already 
serving in permanent capacity in the same grade. 
This is in consonance with principle of justice and 
fair play because service rights of employees in 
the absence of any rules cannot be normally 
affected by outside introduction. The respondent 
No.1 Muhammad Yar Khan till date of his 
absorption continued to be member of his parent 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 23 - 
 
service or cadre. Therefore, unless transferred 
and absorbed on account of conscription; the 
seniority of above respondent in Tourist Services 
Department had to be reckoned from the date of 
his regular appointment against permanent post. 
It may be mentioned here that respondent No.1 
had option to refuse and in such eventuality, he 
would be entitled to seniority reckoned in the 
parent Department.” 
22. 
 
In the case reported as Hamid-ul-Hassain and 
others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, 
Establishment and others (2006 SCMR 832), it was held as 
under:-       
“9. 
Rule 4 in so many words lays down that 
seniority in service, cadre or post to which a civil 
servant is appointed by transfer shall take effect 
from the date of regular appointment to the 
service, 
cadre, 
or 
post. 
Undisputedly 
the 
petitioners were appointed on regular basis vide 
notification dated 17-11-1999 and they were not 
correct in claiming their seniority from any earlier 
date on the ground that they ought to have been 
absorbed or inducted into O.M.G. in the year 1992 
or before that. …” 
 
 
(empahsis supplied) 
 
23.   
It appears that the aforementioned judgments of 
this Court had escaped notice, while passing the judgment 
under review, which runs contrary thereto as well as to the 
provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1993.  
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 24 - 
 
24. 
 
At this juncture, it may be appropriate to refer to 
the 3rd judgment relied upon and quoted in extenso in the 
judgment under review i.e. Din Muhammad v. Director 
General, Pakistan Post Office, Islamabad and 20 others 
(2003 SCMR 333). Even in this judgment, the general 
principle that the seniority of deputationists would be 
reckoned in the transferee Department from the date of 
issue of order of absorption therein has been reiterated. In 
this behalf, it has been held as follows:- 
“…We having carefully considered the 
contention raised by the learned Deputy 
Attorney-General find that crucial date for 
determination of the seniority of appellant 
would be the date of permanent absorption 
of appellant in the office of Post Master 
General, Northern Circle, Rawalpindi…” 
 
         (emphasis supplied)  
 
  
In the said case, the Appellants therein had been 
transferred without any option being exercised by them 
and there was some issue regarding the date of their 
induction into the parent Department. In the instant case, 
the date of induction of the private Respondents in the 
their transferee Department i.e. the Income Tax Group had 
been finally settled by this Court upon an appeal filed by 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 25 - 
 
the private Respondents in the judgment reported as  
Abdul Hameed Anjum and others (Supra) (PLD 2010 SC 
857), and it has clearly been held that the date of induction 
of the private Respondents will be 01.01.2001 and it is 
obviously from such date their seniority in terms of Rule 4 
of the Rules of 1993 must necessarily be reckoned. To ante-
date the induction of the private Respondents in the 
Income Tax Group from 01.01.2001 would amount to a 
review of the judgment of this Court reported as Abdul 
Hameed Anjum and others (Supra) (PLD 2010 SC 857), 
which has attained finality and its findings could not be 
disturbed or varied in the subsequent proceedings as has 
apparently been done, by necessary implication by way of 
the judgment under review. This aspect of the matter too 
had escaped the notice of this Court resulting in an error 
apparent on the face of the record, requiring rectification.  
25. 
 
In view of the above, there is  little room for 
doubt that the seniority of the private Respondents was to 
be determined in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1993 and to 
be reckoned from the date of induction and the regular 
appointment in the transferee Department i.e. Income Tax 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 26 - 
 
Group, a fact conclusively determined by this Court in an 
earlier judgment. By way of the judgment under review, it 
has been held to the contrary, initially by relying upon the 
judgments of this Court, which pertained to the 
interpretation of the various Office Memorandums, Esta 
Code and the Departmental Practice and not Rule 4 of the 
Rules of 1993. It is mentioned in the said judgment in no 
uncertain terms that the law laid down therein would not 
be applicable to the cases covered by Rule 4 of the Rules of 
1993 (as is the instant case). Furthermore, the judgment 
under review in fact reviewed the earlier judgment of this 
Court passed in appeal filed by the private Respondents i.e. 
Abdul Hameed Anjum and others (Supra) (PLD 2010 SC 
857). Consequently, the aforesaid legal error has crept into 
the adjudicatory process and requires rectification to 
further the ends of justice and uphold the law. 
26. 
 
Adverting now to the objections of the private 
Respondents that the instant Review Petitions are barred 
by limitation and some of them are not maintainable 
having been filed by the persons who were not party to the 
Appeals wherein the judgment under review was passed. 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 27 - 
 
Civil Review Petitions Nos.43-K to 45-K of 2012 have been 
filed by the Department, which was admittedly the 
Respondent in the aforesaid Appeals. Hence, the question 
of their maintainability does not arise. No doubt, these 
Review Petitions have been filed 11 days beyond the period 
of limitation prescribed for filing thereof. The said Review 
Petitions are accompanied by applications for condonation 
of delay i.e. Civil Misc. Applications No.456-K to 458-K of 
2012. It appears that the learned counsel for the 
Department, 
who 
had 
appeared 
in 
the 
Appeals, 
whereupon the judgment under review was passed, was 
on general adjournment and had gone abroad and the 
Review Petitions could not be filed in his absence as he 
alone could have given a Certificate in terms of the Rule 4 
of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The 
learned counsel upon being instructed to file a review cut 
short his visit abroad returned to Pakistan and made an 
application for recall of his general adjournment and 
thereafter filed the Civil Review Petitions in question. In 
the circumstances, the delay in filing of the Review 
Petitions was beyond the control of the Review Petitioners. 
Hence, the said delay is condoned and the Civil Misc. 
CRP No.43-K-2012 etc 
- 28 - 
 
Applications No.456-K to 458-K of 2012 are allowed. Since 
the Civil Review Petitions Nos.43-K to 45-K of 2012 filed by 
the Department have been held to be maintainable and the 
delay has been condoned, hence the question of 
maintainability and limitation in other Review Petitions is 
not material.  
27. 
 
These are the reasons of our short Order of even 
date, which is as follows:- 
“We have heard the arguments of the learned 
ASCs. For the reasons to be recorded separately, 
Civil Review Petitions No.43-K to 45-K of 2012, 
2-K to 5-K of 2013 and 6-K & 7-K of 2014 and the 
other three Civil Review Petitions which are yet 
to be numbered along with listed Civil Misc. 
Applications are allowed. The judgment under 
review dated 06.11.2012 is set aside and the Civil 
Appeals 
No.189-K 
to 
191-K 
of 
2011 
are 
dismissed.” 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
       Judge 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
 
       Judge 
11th November, 2015 
Approved For Reporting 
Safdar/*