Legal Case Summary

Case Details
Case ID 0010efec-7ff0-4efc-ac85-e5bac530680a
Body View case body.
Case Number MN-392 of 1988
Decision Date Aug 31, 1988
Hearing Date Aug 30, 1988
Decision The appeal was dismissed as the appellant did not have a right to confirmation against the post he officiated on an ad hoc basis. The court found that the appellant was appointed subject to selection by the competent authority and there was no evidence that he had been selected or that his posting had been approved. The court distinguished this case from a previous one where the promotion was not based on selection. The appellant's right to the post was not established as he failed to show any selection process took place during his service.
Summary This case revolves around an industrial dispute involving the confirmation of a railway employee who was officiating in a post on an ad hoc basis. The employee argued for his right to confirmation and seniority. However, the court found that there was no selection made for the position he held, and thus he had no right to confirmation. The ruling emphasized the importance of formal selection processes in employment and the distinction between ad hoc appointments and regular promotions. This case underscores the legal principles surrounding employment rights and selection criteria within public sector jobs, particularly in the context of labour law. The decision reinforces the necessity for employees to pursue formal selection avenues to secure their positions, particularly in environments with recruitment bans.
Court Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Entities Involved Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan
Judges Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Sher Muhammad Gill
Lawyers Muhammad Ahmad Bani, Muhammad Iqbal Khan
Petitioners Muhammad Ahmad Bani
Respondents Muhammad Iqbal Khan
Citations 1989 SLD 2398, 1989 PLC 754
Other Citations Division Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Multan v. Anwar-ul-Haq 1985 P L C 81
Laws Involved Not available
Sections Not available