Low Graphics Site
White bar
.: Latest News :. .: News in Pictures :.
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker



Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather

Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

March 18, 2006 Saturday Safar 17, 1427

Click to learn more...
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
.




Seniority cannot be revised: FST



By Our Staff Reporter


ISLAMABAD, March 17: The Federal Services Tribunal (FST) has observed that seniority once reckoned by a competent authority cannot be changed at some later stage. The FST bench, comprising Chaudhry Ilyas and Hafeez Mirza, was hearing a case filed by an employee of the Frontier Constabulary, challenging revision of his seniority. He was represented by his counsel Ramzan Khan.

The bench, while admitting the case for regular hearing, said the move appeared to be unlawful. It also restrained Frontier Constabulary from taking any adverse action against the petitioner till the next date of hearing.

The petitioner had contended that he was the senior most in the department and had served for over 29 years. However, the authorities later revised the seniority and a person junior to him was made his senior.

Meanwhile, in another case filed by Qadir Buksh against Wapda, the tribunal decided for an early disposal of the case in view of the petitioner’s career.

Mr Buksh had joined Wapda as an assistant lineman, but resigned during his probation period to further his studies at the University of Engineering and Technology Taxila.

However, instead of accepting his resignation, the Wapda authorities removed him from service and debarred him from further employment. The petitioner claims that he was unaware of the decision till he graduated and started looking for a job.

His counsel, while pleading his case, quoted Section 4(2) of Efficiency and Discipline Rules 1978 which stated that a government employee removed from service could subsequently get another job, but someone dismissed from service would be debarred from further employment.

He contended that the petitioner had only been removed from service and the condition of debarring him from future employment was illegal. He prayed that the condition debarring him from employment should be revoked.






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2006