SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar 
 
 
 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.485 of 2020 
[Against the judgment dated 08.10.2018, passed by the Federal Service 
Tribunal, Lahore Bench Lahore in Appeal No.464(L)/2017] 
 
Secretary, 
Establishment 
Division, 
Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. 
 
…Appellant (s) 
 
Versus 
Imtiz Ahmad Malik, Director Anti-Corruption, 
Establishment Sahiwal and others.  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant (s) 
: Mr. 
Ayaz 
Shaukat, 
Deputy 
Attorney General for Pakistan 
Sajid-ul-Hassan, Section Officer, 
Establishment Division 
 
  
For the Respondent(s) 
: Mr. Muhammad Yasin Bhatti, ASC 
Mian Liaqat Ali, AOR (Absent) 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 27.11.2020 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Gulzar 
Ahmed, 
CJ.— 
Respondent 
No.1 
(the 
respondent) was working as Deputy Central Intelligence Officer 
(BPS-17) in the Intelligence Bureau, Government of Pakistan and 
vide office order dated 28.11.1989 his service was placed at the 
disposal of the Punjab Police on deputation for a period of three 
years. He was absorbed in the Punjab Police as DSP (BPS-17) vide 
order dated 13.05.1992 and this date was treated as the date of his 
fresh appointment in the rank of DSP (BPS-17). A seniority list of 
DSP was issued on 25.09.1997, wherein the name of the 
Civil Appeal No.485 of 2020(SRO 30.11.2020) updated.doc 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
respondent was shown at Serial No.245. The respondent filed 
representation seeking that his seniority in the rank of DSP be 
counted from the date of his absorption and his name in the 
seniority list be fixed below Mr. Iftikhar Hussan Pirzada, whose 
name appeared at Serial No.3. Another seniority list dated 
13.11.2001 was issued in which the name of the respondent 
appeared 
at 
Serial 
No.314. 
The 
respondent 
again 
filed 
representation. Yet again seniority list dated 18.05.2005 was 
issued in which the name of the respondent was shown at Serial 
No.426. The representation of the respondent was rejected vide 
order dated 04.11.2006. The respondent filed the service appeal in 
the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which came to be allowed 
vide judgment dated 30.06.2008, wherein the respondent was 
given seniority from the date of his induction in service as DSP i.e. 
13.05.1992 and fixing his seniority at Serial No.3-A in the seniority 
list dated 25.09.1997. The civil petition filed by the Punjab Police 
before this Court was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2012. 
Since the respondent got the relief of his seniority in the rank of 
DSP from 13.05.1992, he made another representation for granting 
him pro forma promotion in the rank of SP (BPS-18) on the analogy 
of Mr. Muhammad Riaz Maiken, SSP, who was granted pro forma 
promotion with effect from 31.05.1994. The Departmental 
Promotion Board granted pro forma promotion to the respondent as 
SP (BPS-18) with effect from 31.05.1994 vide Notification dated 
10.07.2014. Having succeeded in obtaining pro forma promotion as 
SP (BPS-18), the respondent, who was encadred as PSP Officer vide 
Establishment Division Notification dated 11.10.2007 with effect 
Civil Appeal No.485 of 2020(SRO 30.11.2020) updated.doc 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
from 02.06.2005 made a representation to have his seniority in 
PSP cadre re-fixed according to his seniority of SP (BPS-18). This 
representation of the respondent was declined by the appellant 
vide its order dated 10.04.2017, which is as follows: - 
“Government of Pakistan 
Cabinet Secretariat 
Establishment Division 
 
 
No.2-7/2015-CP-VII Islamabad the 10th April, 2017 
 
 
From: M.Zubair Hayat  
 
Section Officer (CP-VII), 
 
Ph. No.051-9203198 
 
 
To: 
Mr. Khawar Basheer Ahmad,  
 
Section Officer (Services-II), 
 
S&GAD, Government of Punjab, 
 
Lahore 
 
 
Subject: REPRESENTATION FOR MODIFICATION OF 
DATE OF ENCADREMENT (31.05.1994) AND 
GRANTING OF FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL 
BENEFITS ACCORDINGLY. 
 
 
 
I am directed to refer to S&GAD, Government 
of the Punjab’s letter dated 15-09-2015 followed by 
11-04-2017 on the subject noted above and to 
inform that the subject request of Mr.Imtiaz Ahmed 
Malik, PSP/BS-19 was examined in the Division as 
per Law/Rule /Policy and the same was regretted by 
the Competent Authority, in the light of Supreme 
Court of Pakistan’s Judgment dated 15-12-2014 
passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 1122 & 1123 of 2011, 
431 of 2013, 1343 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal 
No.436 
of 
2011, 
which 
categorically 
declared 
encadrement/ 
appointment 
into 
PSP 
with 
prospective effect and not retrospective effect. 
 
The officer may accordingly, be informed of the above 
stated position.  
 
Civil Appeal No.485 of 2020(SRO 30.11.2020) updated.doc 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
        Yours faithfully, 
 
            -sd.- 
(M.Zubair Hayat)” 
4. 
 
The respondent filed service appeal in the Federal 
Service Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore (the Tribunal) in which he 
made the following prayer: - 
 
““In view of foregoing reasons, it is humbly prayed 
that the order dated 10.04.2017 (ANNEX. A/18) 
conveyed vide letter dated 13.07.2017 (ANNEX. 
A/19), received by the appellant on 31.07.2017 
passed by the respondent No.1 may kindly be set 
aside and the appellant may kindly be ordered to be 
granted seniority qua to his juniors in P.S.P. Cadre 
(In Punjab Province) i.e. Ghulam Muhammad Kalyar 
who was junior to Aslam Sahi and was inducted in 
P.S.P. Cadre amongst the provincial quota and all 
consequential service benefits be also awarded to the 
appellant so that the ends of justice are achieved.” 
 
Vide impugned judgment dated 08.10.2018, the Tribunal 
allowed the appeal granting the respondent the following relief: - 
 
“In view of what has been discussed above, we are of 
the opinion that PST’s judgment has attained finality 
and the notification dated 10.07.2014, is still in the 
field and there was nothing in the judgment of the 
August 
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Pakistan, 
dated 
15.12.2014 which rendered the case of the appellant 
to be revisited. The appeal, therefore, is accepted and 
the impugned order is set aside.”    
6. 
 
Mr. Ayaz Shaukat, learned Deputy Attorney General 
for Pakistan has contended that the Tribunal was not at all 
justified in distinguishing the judgment of this Court dated 
Civil Appeal No.485 of 2020(SRO 30.11.2020) updated.doc 
- 5 - 
 
 
 
15.12.2014, which was applicable on all fours to the case in hand 
and was binding on the Tribunal by virtue of Article 189 of the 
Constitution, in that, this Court has laid down the principle of law 
of encadrement in the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) and no 
retrospective encadrement could be granted. 
7. 
 
Mr. Muhammad Yasin Bhatti, learned counsel for the 
respondent, on the other hand, contends that once the respondent 
has been granted pro forma promotion as SP (BS-18) with effect 
from 
31.05.1994 
vide 
Notification 
dated 
10.07.2014 
his 
encadrement has to be made accordingly. 
8. 
 
There is no dispute on facts between the parties and 
the only issue that has arisen before the Court is whether or not 
the judgment of this Court dated 15.12.2014 was applicable to the 
case in hand. We may note that the respondent was encadred as 
PSP Officer vide Notification dated 11.10.2007 with effect from 
02.06.2005. After this Court has given its judgment dated 
15.12.2014, 
this 
very 
Notification of 
encadrement 
of 
the 
respondent as PSP Officer was revised vide Notification dated 
07.07.2015 and the date of encadrement of the respondent as a 
PSP Officer was changed from 02.06.2005 to that of 11.10.2007. 
This very Notification dated 07.07.2015, admittedly, was not 
challenged by the respondent. The judgment of this Court dated 
15.12.2014 is reported as Muhammad Zafar Ali and others vs. 
Asim Gulzar and others (2015 SCMR 365). The operative part of 
which is reproduced as follows: - 
“13.  It is common ground between the appellants 
Civil Appeal No.485 of 2020(SRO 30.11.2020) updated.doc 
- 6 - 
 
 
 
and the respondents that Rule 11(2)(c) is not in 
conflict with either subsection (2), subsection (3) or 
for that matter subsection (4) of section 8 of the Act, 
1973. The Rules, 1985 provide 3 modes of 
appointments to the PSP: initial appointment (Rule 
5), appointment of officer of the Armed Forces (Rule 
6) and appointment of members of the Provincial 
Police (Rule 7). The seniority amongst the police 
officers is regulated by Rule 11. Clause ‘a’ of sub-rule 
2 of Rule 11 provides for seniority between the 
officers inducted into the Police Service of Pakistan 
through initial appointment. Clause 'b' regulates the 
seniority of those appointed in the Police Service of 
Pakistan from the Armed Forces, whereas clause ‘c’ 
deals with the seniority of the police official encadred 
from the Provinces. The said Rules do not make any 
provision for determining seniority in between the 
various groups except to a limited extent under 
proviso to clause ‘b’, between initial appointees and 
the officers coming from the Armed Forces appointed 
in the same year; that the latter shall rank senior to 
those appointed through the process of induction 
through initial appointment. However, there is no 
provision for regulating seniority between initial 
appointees and those encadred from the Provinces. 
Rule 
11 
therefore 
only 
provides 
criteria 
for 
determining seniority within each group. Rule 
11(2)(c) is confined to determination of seniority 
amongst the encadred police officers. Thus, where a 
question of seniority arises either between those 
coming from the same Province or between officers 
encadred from different Provinces the same will be 
determined in accordance with Rule 11(2)(c). The 
said rule is thus to be restricted only to the 
determination of seniority in the encadred group and 
cannot be made applicable for determining their 
seniority vis-à-vis the other two groups. When it 
comes to deciding seniority between members of 
different groups the relevant date would be that of 
Civil Appeal No.485 of 2020(SRO 30.11.2020) updated.doc 
- 7 - 
 
 
 
their regular appointment. For the purposes of 
determination 
of 
inter 
se 
seniority 
encadred 
provincial police officers cannot be considered initial 
appointees in view of the clear mode of appointment 
for each of the three groups stated in Rules 5, 6 and 
7 where 'initial appointment' is confined to those 
appointed against a cadre post through competitive 
examination held by the Federal Public Service 
Commission. We therefore find no conflict of Rule 
11(2)(c) with any provision of section 8 of the Act, 
1973 and the two can exist in harmony. 
 
14. Another aspect of the case is that Rule 11(2)(c) 
only provides for determination of seniority and not 
appointment. The appointments in the encadred 
group are made under Rule 7 which states that 
"Members of the Police cadre of a Province shall be 
appointed to the Service on the basis of selection 
made on the recommendation of the Governor". Had 
the intention of the legislation been to make 
provision for retrospective appointment of such 
officers from the date on which the vacancy arose in 
a Province it would have been specifically mentioned 
in Rule 7. The use of the words “shall be appointed 
to the service” indicates that the appointment is to 
be with prospective effect and not retrospective 
effect. The settled principle is that appointments are 
always prospective in nature notwithstanding a 
vacancy occurring earlier. This has been clearly held 
by this Court in the case of Khushi Muhammad (ibid) 
where it was held that "it would be against all 
notions of natural justice that persons who join 
service in a grade first should be relegated to a junior 
position as against those who join later, merely 
because they fill vacancies which were deemed to be 
reserved for them. The ratio of 50:50 between the 
direct recruits and the departmental promotees 
merely related to the policy of their recruitment to 
the grade and is not to be extended to the fixation of 
Civil Appeal No.485 of 2020(SRO 30.11.2020) updated.doc 
- 8 - 
 
 
 
their seniority or their confirmation inter se." The 
appointment of the encadred police officers from the 
Provinces is to be made with prospective effect and 
retrospective 
effect 
can 
be 
given 
to 
such 
appointments only for the limited purpose of 
determining 
their 
own 
inter 
se 
seniority 
in 
accordance with Rule 11(2)(c) of the Rules, 1985.”   
9. 
 
In the face of the above observation of this Court, more 
particularly, setting at rest the question of law on the point of 
encadrement, this Court has held that “The appointment of the 
encadred police officer from the Provinces is to be made with 
prospective effect”. Only after encadrement as PSP Officer has been 
made of a police official from a Province, his inter se seniority 
among the encadred officers shall be determined under Rule 
11(2)(c) of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and 
Seniority) Rules, 1985 but the very encadrement has to be from the 
date when the encadrement as PSP Officer has actually been 
effected and counted as such. The case of the respondent is not 
that of inter se seniority of the police officers from the provinces, 
therefore, Rule 11(2)(c) ibid is not applicable in the instant case. 
10. 
 
In view of the above state of law, we are mindful that 
the Tribunal in the impugned judgment has not adverted itself to 
the judgment of this Court noted above, and thus, committed grave 
illegality in not following the same, which had application to the 
case in hand and was binding on the Tribunal under Article 189 of 
the Constitution. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned 
judgment dated 08.10.2018 is set aside and the service appeal filed 
Civil Appeal No.485 of 2020(SRO 30.11.2020) updated.doc 
- 9 - 
 
 
 
by the respondent is dismissed. C.M.As No.7534 and 7535 of 2020 
are also disposed of.   
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Bench-I 
Islamabad  
27.11.2020 
 APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
Rabbani*/ 
JUDGE 
 
