IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
 
 
Civil Appeals Nos. 845-846 of 2010 AND 
CAs Nos. 596-L to 599-L of 2013 A/W 
CMAs Nos. 4548/2014 & 3891/2015. 
(On 
appeal 
against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
26.10.2009 Passed by Federal Service Tribunal, 
Islamabad in Appeal No. 751 (R) CS/2007) 
 
 
Abu Bakar Farooq 
(In CA 845/10)  
Pakistan Railways thr. its Chairman, M/o 
Railways, Ibd. 
(In CA 846/10  
& 597-L/13)  
The Secretary M/o Railways etc.  
(In CAs 596-L & 598-L a/w CMAs 
4548/14, CMA 3891/15)  
Salman Sadiq Sheikh & others 
(In CA 599-L/13) 
 
… Appellant(s) 
/Applicant(s)  
 
 
Versus 
 
Muhammad Ali Rajpar & others 
(In CA 845-486/10 &  
CA 599-L/13)  
Fiaz Ali Shah 
(In CA 596-L & CMA 4548/14)  
Anwar Saeed Dawar 
(In CA 597-L/13) 
Asghar Ali Bhutto 
(In CA 598-L & CMA 3891/2015) 
 
 
… Respondent (s) 
In CA No. 845/2010 
For the Appellant (s) 
: 
Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, ASC 
Mr. M.S Khattak, AOR 
 
For the Respondent No. 1 
: 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC 
 
For the Respondent No. 2, 3 : 
Mr. Muhammad Abbas Mirza, ASC 
 
In CA No. 846/2010 
: 
 
For the Appellant 
: 
Mr. Muhammad Abbas Mirza, ASC 
 
For the Respondent No. 1 
: 
In Person 
 
In CA No. 596-L & 598-L of 2013: 
For the Appellant (s) 
: 
 
Mr. Muhammad Abbas Mirza, ASC 
For the Respondent No. 1 
: 
N.R. 
 
For the Applicant 
: 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC 
(In CMA No. 3891/2015) 
In CA No. 599-L/2013 
 
 
For the Appellant (s) 
: 
Mr. Muhammad Siddique Awan, ASC 
 
For the Respondent No. 1 
: 
In person 
 
For the Respondent No. 2,3 
: 
Mr. Muhammad Abbas Mirza, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
 
: 
31.01.2019 
 
 
 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
2
Judgment 
 
 
 
Sajjad Ali Shah, J. These appeals, with the leave of 
this Court, have been filed against the judgment of the Federal 
Service Tribunal whereby the said Tribunal while allowing the 
appeal of the respondent Muhammad Ali Rajpar directed the 
appellant-Department to regularize his services from the date of 
his Adhoc appointment with all back benefits. It appears that on 
the strength of this judgment, the Tribunal granted the same 
benefits to three other similarly placed officers who are 
respondents in Civil Appeals No. 596-L to 598-L of 2013 whereas 
the appellant in Civil Appeals No. 845/2010 & 599-L of 2013, 
though were not party before the Tribunal but have been adversely 
affected and therefore have independently impugned the same 
judgment on the basis of principle laid down by this Court in the 
case of H. M. Saya & Co., Karachi vs. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd., Karachi 
and another (PLD 1969 SC 65). 
2. 
 
Briefly, the Respondent No.1 on 10.11.1990, was 
appointed as Assistant Mechanical Engineer (AME) in Pakistan 
Railways on adhoc basis for a period of six months or for such 
extended period as may be sanctioned and/or till the nominees of 
Federal Public Service Commission becomes available, whichever is 
earlier. The appointment letter further covenanted that the 
Respondent would apply through proper channel to the Federal 
Public Service Commission for selection and appointment to the 
post in question on regular basis as and when the said post was 
advertised by the Commission. It appears that the Respondent 
continued his services as adhoc employee and in the meanwhile 
invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of Lahore High Court by 
filing writ petition No. 144 of 1998 seeking regularization of his 
service. However, the adhoc service of the respondent was 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
3
terminated on 30.06.2000 and from 01.07.2000 he was appointed 
on contract for a period of two years or till the joining of Federal 
Public Service Commission’s nominee. The Respondent continued 
on contract till 01.07.2002 and thereafter his services were 
dispensed with. It appears that on 8.5.2003 Lahore High Court 
while deciding the said petition divided the cases of all similarly 
placed petitioners into two categories (i) qualified adhoc appointees 
(ii) adhoc appointees lacking qualification and then directed the 
department to refer the case of qualified adhoc appointees to the 
Federal Public Service Commission for considering their cases in 
accordance with law without any discrimination. Consequently, the 
Respondent on the recommendation of the Federal Public Service 
Commission dated 22.11.2006 was offered a temporary post of 
Assistant Mechanical Engineer (BS-17) in terms of his appointment 
letter dated 12.01.2007. The Respondent thereafter on 20.02.2007 
requested the Ministry of Railways to regularize his services 
rendered as adhoc employee right from 10.11.1990 till date and 
also to treat the period between 01.07.2002 to 22.11.2006 (during 
which period he was unemployed) as spent on duty. The 
Representation was rejected by the department vide letter dated 
16.05.2007 which led the Respondent to approach the Services 
Tribunal which after hearing the parties not only directed the 
Appellant Pakistan Railways to regularize the period of adhoc 
appointment from 10.11.1990 to 31.06.2002 but also to treat the 
period from 01.07.2002 to 31.07.2007 during which the 
Respondent remained unemployed as spent on duty and held the 
Respondent entitled to the payment of full back benefit for the said 
period. The Tribunal further directed to reckon his services for the 
purposes of seniority amongst his colleagues w.e.f. 11.07.1990. It 
appears that respondents in Civil Appeals No. 596-L to 598-L of 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
4
2013 whose cases were akin to respondent Muhammad Ali Rajpar 
also applied to the Tribunal for the same relief and the Tribunal 
allowed their appeals and granted them the same benefit as was 
granted to the respondent Muhammad Ali Rajpar. Whereas Civil 
Appeals No. 845/2010 and 599-L/2013 have been filed by the 
employees who were adversely affected due to reckoning of the 
respondents’ service from the date of their adhoc appointment.  
This order not only led the department to impugn it before this 
Court vide CA No. 846/2010, 596-L, 597-L & 598-L of 2013 but 
also led the other employees who’s seniority was adversely effected 
to impugn the same by filing CA No. 845/2010 and CA 599 
L/2013.  
3. 
 
The common question for granting leave in all these 
cases was to consider as to whether respondents could be granted 
seniority with effect from the date of their adhoc appointment.   
4. 
 
Learned ASC appearing for Pakistan Railways as well 
as other Appellants who have been adversely affected through the 
impugned judgment contended that the impugned judgment of the 
Service Tribunal is bad as it not only directs the regularization of 
services rendered by Respondent as adhoc employee which is 
against the principles settled by this Court in number of 
judgments but also directs counting of the period during which the 
Respondent did not serve Pakistan Railways as spent on duty with 
all back benefits. Learned ASC referred to various clauses of 
Respondent’s appointment letter dated 12.01.2007 which provided 
that his regularization will be considered as first appointment and 
he would rank junior most in his cadre/service and he would be 
considered 
regular 
employee 
of 
Pakistan 
Railways 
from 
22.11.2006, the date on which Federal Public Service Commission 
recommended the Respondent for regular appointment. It was 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
5
further pleaded that one of the covenant also provided that the 
Respondent would not claim any seniority over the regular 
appointees of the commission who may have joined the service 
during the period the Respondent was on adhoc appointment. It 
was lastly contended that the order of the Tribunal was further bad 
because the private Petitioners were condemned unheard by 
disturbing their seniority and placing the Respondent senior to 
them. It was therefore, jointly submitted that the impugned order 
could not be sustained.  
5. 
 
On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, 
Senior ASC appearing for the Respondent Muhammad Ali Rajpar 
straightaway conceded that he would not support the portion of 
impugned order of the tribunal whereby the Respondent was 
allowed the payment of full back benefits for the period w.e.f. 
01.07.2002 to 31.01.2007. However, Senior ASC contended that 
the tribunal has corrected a wrong committed by the department 
by keeping the respondent as adhoc employee for a period of 
almost 10 years. It was further contended that adhoc employment 
of the Respondent could not have been unilaterally switched to as 
contract employee and, therefore, respondent was entitled to the 
benefit of the period during which he was kept out of service at 
least for the purposes of seniority. Learned ASC while placing 
reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Dr. Naveeda 
Tufail vs. Govt. of Punjab (2003 SCMR 291) contended that adhoc 
employment for such a long period creates a genuine impression in 
the mind of an employee that he would be retained on regular 
basis and that the adhoc appointment for such a long period 
without taking steps for fulfilling vacancies through the process of 
selection amounts to misusing that authority for which the 
respondent could not be punished by depriving him from the 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
6
benefit of the services he rendered. Mr. Sheikh learned Senior ASC 
further while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the 
case of Ikram Bari vs. NBP (2005 SCMR 100) contended that 
retaining a person on adhoc basis for such a long time is nothing 
but sheer exploitation and it is the duty of the state to ensure the 
elimination of all forms of exploitation and on failure of the state 
the courts must come to the rescue of the person so exploited and 
in this case the Tribunal has taken care of such exploitation. 
Learned ASC appearing for the rest of the respondents who were 
given the benefit of continuation of service on the basis of 
impugned judgment have adopted the submission of Mr. Sheikh. 
6. 
 
We have heard the learned ASC for the appellants as 
well as for the respondents perused the record and the case law 
cited at bar. 
7. 
 
The position as it emerges from the record appears to 
be that the respondent was inducted into service as Assistant 
Mechanical Engineer in Pakistan Railways (BS-17) in the year 
1990 as an adhoc employee for a period of six month or for such 
extended period as may be sanctioned, however, his status as of 
adhoc employees was extended from time to time till the year 2000. 
Thereafter his services were acquired on contract for a period of 
only two years and in July 2002, as evident from the respondent’s 
representation dated 20.4.2004, his services were terminated as he 
twice failed to qualify or absented himself from the selection 
process conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission. The 
record further reflects that on 12.1.2007 the said respondent on 
the recommendation of Federal Public Service Commission was 
offered regular appointment to the same post. The letter of 
appointment/regularization of service inter alia contained the 
following conditions:- 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
7
i)  
Your regularization will be considered as 
your first appointment. As such you will be 
the junior most in your cadre/service. You 
will be considered regular employee of 
Pakistan Railways w.e.f. 22-11-2006. 
 
ii)  
You will not claim any seniority over the 
regular appointees of the commission who 
may have joined the service during your 
period of adhoc appointment.  
 
iii)  
Your pay in BS-17 will be fixed in 
accordance with the extant rules and your 
previous service on adhoc basis in Railway 
will be counted for the purpose of service 
qualifying for pension, pay leave and other 
retirement benefits as admissible under the 
rules. 
 
 
 
iv) to viii) 
…” 
 
8. 
 
In this backdrop the respondent 
accepted his 
regularization/appointment and effected joining accordingly. The 
respondent soon after submitting his joining made representation 
for treating the period between 1st July 2002 to 22nd November 
2006, during which he remained out of service, to be treated as on 
duty. It appears that the representation did not find favour with 
the Department and consequently the respondent approached the 
Service Tribunal which through impugned order not only 
regularized the intervening period but also granted seniority, 
promotion and allied benefits.   
9. 
 
The law relating to the initial appointments to all 
Pakistan services, the service of the Federation and the post in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation in basic scale 16 and 
above, except those which under the Federal Public Service 
Commission (Function) Rules, 1978 do not fall within the purview 
of the Commission, as detailed in Rule 10 of the Civil Servants 
(Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 (“Rules of 
1973”) explicitly provides that such appointments could only be 
made on the basis of test and examination to be conducted by the 
Commission.   
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
8
10. 
 
The adhoc appointments to the post falling within the 
purview of the Commission in terms of Rule 19 of the “Rules of 
1973” could be made only in cases where the appointing authority 
has placed the requisition with the Commission for regular 
appointment and during the intervening period which normally is 
consumed by the Commission for undertaking the process of 
selection and recommending the names of the candidates for 
regular appointment, the appointing Authority as a “stop gap” 
arrangement considers it to be in public interest to fill the post 
urgently may after obtaining prior clearance of the Commission fill 
the vacancy on adhoc basis for a period of six months or less. Even 
while filling a vacancy on adhoc basis the appointing authority has 
to adopt the procedure as is provided in Part-III of the “Rules of 
1973”. Since the appointments on adhoc as provided under the law 
being a “stop gap” arrangements, therefore, as provided in Section 
11(3) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 stand terminated either on the 
expiry of the period for which such adhoc appointment was made 
or on the appointment of a person recommended by the 
Commission. It is for this reason that such adhoc appointee does 
not acquire a right to claim his seniority in accordance with 
Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 vis-à-vis the civil servants 
who are appointed on regular basis on the recommendation of the 
Commission after going through the selection process.  
11. 
 
It may be true that in some cases, like the instant one 
the adhoc appointment is prolonged for years altogether either for 
ulterior motives or by convenience in gross violation of Rule 19 of 
the “Rules of 1973” as well as Rule 3 of the Federal Public Service 
Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978, and such prolonged adhoc 
appointment may lure the appointee to continue with the full 
knowledge that this marriage of convenience would ultimately 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
9
break to his detriment for such adhoc appointment does not create 
any right in favour of the incumbent to compel the authority to 
regularize his appointment. In fact the authority has no such 
power to regularize the service of an adhoc appointee because the 
only door to enter the arena of all Pakistan services detailed in 
Rule 10 of “Rules of 1973” is through Public Service Commission.  
12. 
 
Coming to the submissions of learned Sr. ASC for the 
Respondents that continuation of Respondent’s service on adhoc 
basis for such a long time was nothing but a sheer exploitation 
which needs to be remedied by the Court. Mr. Sheikh backed his 
submissions by heavily relying and taking us through various 
portions of the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of 
Ikram Bari vs. National Bank of Pakistan (2005 SCMR 100). Suffice 
it to observe that in the said case services of daily wages employees 
in various categories who had served the Bank for number of 
years, were terminated by the National Bank of Pakistan on the 
ground that they were still in the category of temporary employees 
and it was in that context that this Court had observed that “an 
employee being jobless and in fear of being shown the door had no 
option but to accept and continue with the appointment on whatever 
condition it was offered by the Bank. It was further observed that 
such prolonged temporary retention of the employees by the Bank 
was nothing but sheer exploitation and the State as required by the 
Constitution was bound to ensure the elimination of all forms of 
exploitation”. It is also important to note that in the said case the 
method/procedure or the Authority of the Bank regarding 
appointment of the employees whose services were terminated was 
not in question, whereas in the instant case the very Authority of 
the 
Government 
to 
recruit 
a 
person 
to 
the 
service 
of 
Pakistan/Federation on regular basis in cases where the process 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
10
falls within the sole domain of the Public Service Commission, did 
not exist.   
13. 
 
The fact of the matter remains that neither the adhoc 
employee has right to hold the post beyond the period for which he 
was appointed nor the government has a right to continue with 
such adhoc appointees for such a long period. This situation arises 
only when the government violates the provision of Rule 3 of the 
Federal Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978 and 
without placing a requisition before Commission for regular 
appointment fill the post on adhoc basis and then keep on 
extending the period of such adhoc appointment and the adhoc 
appointee knowing fully well that his adhoc appointment is not in 
accordance with the prescribed method of appointment and is only 
a “stop gap” arrangement, till recruitment in accordance with the 
prescribed method of Appointment is made, clings to such post. 
Such conduct of the government has always been deprecated by 
the Courts but such short coming/non adherence to the legal 
requirements by the competent authority can earn no benefit for 
the incumbent for the simple reason that bestowing the benefits of 
regular appointment upon an ad hoc employee would not only 
amount to regularizing unlawful appointment and providing 
premium to the beneficiary of such wrong but would also amount 
to opening another door of entry into service of Pakistan by 
frustrating the only prescribed mode of appointment through the 
Commission.  
14. 
 
The view of this Court regarding the status of adhoc 
appointees and their claim to seniority, right from the inception 
has remained consistent. This Court in the case of Muhammad 
Afzal vs. Government of the Punjab (1982 SCMR 408), held as 
follows:- 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
11
“We propose taking up the question of the nature and 
effect of ad hoc appointment first because it is common 
to the first three appellants and to some of the 
respondents. 
Their 
appointments 
as 
Assistant 
Engineers were expressed to be ad hoc, temporary, not 
conferring any right to seniority etc. The word ‘ad hoc’ 
has the dictionary meaning of ‘For a particular object’. 
The object as appearing from the appointment of the 
appellants as well as that of some of the respondents 
was that their appointments were made and were to 
last only as long as regular appointments in accordance 
with the prescribed Rules were not made. The moment 
the regular appointments in accordance with the 
procedure prescribed were made, such appointments 
were to terminate. Ad hoc appointments truly so called 
being not in accordance with the Rules applicable to the 
service cannot receive either recognition or protection by 
reference to any of the Rules because they do not imply 
appointments to the service as such. Such appointments 
being outside the purview of the rules cannot for any 
purpose be treated as conferring a benefit under the 
Rules. It follows that if the appellants and some of the 
respondents were truly ad hoc appointees for a certain 
period they cannot on the basis of Rules claim their 
seniority from that date whether it was continuous or 
not”. 
 
15. 
 
In the case of Naila Khalid vs Pakistan (PLD 2003 SC 
420), this Court has held as under: 
Undoubtedly, the petitioner was appointed as lecturer 
on ad hoc basis as a stopgap arrangement for tenure of 
six months or till the availability of a nominee by 
F.P.S.C. Ad hoc appointment of a person does not confer 
any right or interest to continuous appointment, 
seniority, or promotion. It is held by an incumbent till a 
person is regularly selected by the Public Service 
Commission for the post held by an ad-hoc appointee. It 
is well-settled that the services of such appointee can be 
dispensed with at any moment without assigning any 
reason. Section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
12
specifies cases in which the service of a civil servant 
may be terminated without notice. Precisely, it deals 
with the termination of service of a civil servant during 
the initial or extended period of probation, on the expiry 
of initial or extended period of employment or if the 
appointment is made ad hoc terminable on appointment 
of a person on the recommendation of the selection 
authority. On the appointment of such person it would 
appear that no right as to continuation of service vests 
in a person appointed on ad hoc basis. Only safeguard 
provided in subsection (3) of section 11 is that services 
of such appointee shall be liable to termination on 
fourteen days’ notice or pay in lieu thereof. 
 
16. 
 
Likewise in the case of Muhammad Wasay Tareen vs. 
Chief Justice of Balochistan (2005 SCMR 464), this Court after 
examining the case law in respect of adhoc appointments came to 
the following conclusion:- 
“The words ‘ad hoc appointment’ as defined by 
clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the 
Balochistan Civil Servants Act No. IX of 1974, mean 
the appointment of a duly qualified person made 
otherwise than in accordance with prescribed 
method of recruitment, pending recruitment in 
accordance with such method. Such an appointment 
cannot be equated with regular appointment. It is 
meant 
for 
a 
particular 
object. 
The 
ad 
hoc 
appointment by its very definition, is of a qualified 
person but is not in accordance with rules prescribed 
for 
regular 
appointment 
for 
which 
the 
recommendation of the Public Service Commission is 
necessary. There is no rule which can entitle the ad 
hoc appointee to be confirmed in a vacancy during 
the subsistence of lien of another person on such 
vacancy. In some cases, it may continue unless 
regularized by the competent authority in accordance 
with law. In Federation of Pakistan and another v. 
Hashim Shah Qureshi 1987 SCMR 156, it was held 
that mere continuance of employment of a temporary 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
13
employee for two years or more in service did not 
ipso facto convert the appointment into permanent 
one. In the case of Mrs. Naila Khalid v. Pakistan 
through Secretary Defence and others PLD 2003 SC 
420, it was laid down that ad hoc appointment did 
not confer on an appointee any right or interest to 
continuous appointment, seniority or promotion and 
that service of such an appointee could be dispensed 
with at any moment without assigning any reason. A 
somewhat similar view was taken in the cases of 
Mian Muhammad Afzal (supra), Ghulam Sarwar v. 
Province of Punjab 1982 SCMR 46 Chief Secretary, 
Government of the Punjab, Lahore and another v. 
Abdul Majeed 2001 SCMR 1971 and Muhammad 
Azam Khan and others v. Government of N.W.F.P. 
through Chief Secretary, N.W.F.P Peshawar and 4 
others 1998 SCMR 204, Muhammad Azam Ali and 
35 others v. Government of the Punjab through Chief 
Secretary and another 1985 SCMR 1408, Saifuddin 
v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab and others 
1982 SCMR 877, Farida Khanum v. Federation of 
Pakistan through Secretary, Education, Islamabad 
C.P. No. 957 of 1999, decided by this Court on 
16.6.1999 and Amjad Ali v. Board of Intermediate 
and Secondary Education and others 2001 SCMR 12 
We may also observe that the ad hoc appointment by 
its very nature is different from that of appointment 
on probation as held in the case of Muhammad 
Siddique Ahmed Khan v. Pakistan Railways 1997 
SCMR 1514”. 
 
17. 
 
This Court, even in the case of Naveeda Tufail vs. 
Government of Punjab (2003 SCMR 291), relied by Mr. Sheikh Sr. 
ASC after in depth examining the appointments made on adhoc 
basis for lengthy periods had concluded in the following terms:- 
“There is no cavil to the proposition that an ad hoc 
employee has no right to hold the post beyond the 
period for which he was appointed and it is also not 
right for the Government to continue ad hoc 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
14
appointments 
for 
number 
of 
years 
without 
undertaking the exercise of selection on regular basis 
in the prescribed manner. The ad hoc appointment is 
appointment of a duly qualified person made 
otherwise in accordance with prescribed method of 
recruitment and is made only in exceptional 
circumstances. This stopgap arrangement as a 
temporary measure for a particular period of time 
does not by itself confer any right on the incumbent 
for regular appointment or to hold it for indefinite 
period but at the same time if it is found that 
incumbent is qualified to hold the post despite his 
appointment being in the nature of precarious tenure, 
he would carry the right to be considered for 
permanent appointment through the process of 
selection as the continuation of ad hoc appointment 
for considerable length of time would create an 
impression in the mind of the employee that he was 
being really considered to be retained on regular 
basis. The ad hoc appointment by its very nature is 
transitory which is made for a particular period and 
creates no right in favour of incumbent with lapse of 
time and the appointing authority may in his 
discretion if necessary, make ad hoc appointments 
but it is not open for the authority to disregard the 
rules relating to the filling of vacancies on regular 
basis in the prescribed manner. We may observe 
that practice of making appointments on ad hoc 
basis for continuous period without taking steps for 
fulfilling the vacancies through the process of 
selection in the prescribed manner amounts to 
misuse the authority and this Court at more than one 
occasions observed that the appointments on ad hoc 
basis 
should 
be 
discouraged 
and 
except 
in 
exceptional circumstances, it should not be allowed 
to continue beyond the period for which the 
appointment was initially made. The appointments 
in the public sector is a trust in the hands of public 
authorities and it is their legal and moral duty to 
discharge their function as trustee with complete 
CAs 845 of 2010 etc 
15
transparency as per requirement of law so that no 
person who is eligible to hold such posts, is excluded 
from the process of selection and is deprived of his 
right of appointment in service”. 
 
18. 
 
In the circumstances, the order of the Federal Service 
Tribunal is found against the principles settled by this Court and 
could not be sustained.  
19. 
 
These are the reasons for our short order of even date, 
reproduced herein below, whereby we had allowed these appeals:- 
“For the reasons to be recorded separately, these 
Civil Appeals are allowed and the impugned 
judgments/orders of the learned Federal Service 
Tribunal are set aside”.  
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
31st January, 2019 
A. Rehman 
 
Judge 
 
 
Approved for Reporting.