Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Through Proper Channel

The Honorable
Federal Secretary Education
Ministry of Education
Government of Pakistan
D-Block, Pak Secretariat


Subject: Representation for Similar Treatment in respect of Regularization

of Services and Payment of Back Benefits for the Period starting from 20-12-
1999 and ending on 13-07-2007 including the Period Up to Date

Respected Sir,

1. That I am presently serving as a Lecturer in Political Science (BS-17) in the

Federal Government College for Women, Islamabad. As shall be submitted
below, being a working women making it on her own, I have undergone
very tortious circumstances in order to secure my fundamental rights
relating to my sole source of livelihood which depends wholly on the terms
and conditions of my service.

2. I joined this noble profession as Lecturer on ad hoc basis by joining the

Federal Government Higher Secondary School, G-8/4 Islamabad on 24-08
1989. However, due to the Government policy, my services were
terminated, along with other ad hoc appointees, w.e.f. 29-12-1990. Later by
an order dated 16-12-1993, I was reinstated w.e.f. 29-12-1990. I kept
performing my duties with diligence, honesty and upto the best of my
endeavors until 20-12-1999, when again I was relieved of my duties vide a
departmental order dated 04-07-2000. I preferred a departmental appeal
against the aforesaid order dated 04-07-2000 which was rejected and I was
obliged thereafter to approach the Federal Services Tribunal for redressal of
my grievance.

3. My appeal was accepted by the Federal Services Tribunal vide Judgment

dated 03-06-2006 and my case was referred to the Federal Public Services
Commission for further proceedings. It was observed by the Tribunal at
paragraph 11 of the aforesaid Judgment dated 03-06-2006 as under:
“We find that the ratio of High Court’s aforementioned cited decision is equally
attracted in Appellant’s case which has been followed by this Tribunal in Naheed
Naushahi’s case” (highlighting mine)

(Copy of the Judgment dated 03-06-2006 by the FST is Annex-A herewith).

4. That in pursuance of the directions by the honorable Federal Services

Tribunal as above-mentioned, the honorable Federal Public Service
Commission considered my case and recommended for my retention in
service as Lecturer Political Science (BS-17). Pursuant to the
recommendation of the FPSC as aforesaid, the Competent Authority by
gazette notification declared my retention/reinstatement in service.
However, the issue of determination of my seniority and payment of back
benefits from 20-12-1999 to 13-07-2007 was left unsettled pending
determination of the same by the Establishment Division. (Letter of FPSC
dated 13-06-2007 and Notification dated 07-08-2007 is Annex-B/1 and
Annex-B/2 herewith).

5. The Establishment Division was pleased to determine that the seniority of

the Applicant herein shall be determined as fresh appointee from the date
of FPSC’s recommendation dated 13-07-2007 under the provisions of
subsection (3) to section 11-B of the Civil Servants Act 1973 read with Rule 2
of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules 1993. However, it was later
transpired that the honorable Federal Services Tribunal vide Judgment
dated 24-03-2009 was pleased to grant Mrs. Naheed Naushahi (Pl see
paragraph 3 above) seniority and full back benefits from the date of her
termination from 20-12-1999 to 28-12-2005 (the date when FPSC
recommended her reinstatement). Since the case of the instant Applicant
was identical to Mrs. Naheed Naushahi, Applicant herein made a
departmental Appeal dated 25-05-2009 to your goodself requesting for the
same treatment as was granted to Mrs. Naheed Naushahi by the Federal
Services Tribunal vide order dated 24-03-2009. (Order of Establishment
Division, Judgment of FST in Naheed Naushahi’s case and former Appeal
of the instant Applicant are Annex-C, Annex-D and Annex-E herewith.)

6. It was held by the honorable Federal Services Tribunal in the Judgment

dated 25-05-2009 (Naheed Naushahi’s case) (in paragraphs no. 7 to 10) that
order of the Competent Authority pursuant to the recommendation of the
Federal Public Services Tribunal dated 28-12-2005 directing
‘reinstatement/retention’ could not be treated/changed to as ‘fresh
appointment’ by the Establishment Division. It was further held that the
order dated 20-12-1999 terminating the services was set aside, and therefore
Mrs. Naheed Naushahi was reinstated with all consequential benefits
including seniority. It was further decided that after setting aside of the
order of termination dated 20-12-1999, Mrs. Naheed Naushahi who was
prevented from serving during the period from 20-12-1999 to 28-12-2005
due to no fault on her part, shall be considered on service from 20-12-1999.
(Order of FST’s Judgment dated 24-03-2009 is Annex-F).

7. It appears that the department appealed to the honorable Supreme Court

against the Judgment dated 24-03-2009 by the FST (Annex-F above) and
therefore Appeal dated 25-05-2009 (Annex-E above) of the Instant
Applicant was turned down by an order dated ______________. (Copy of
Order dated ________ is Annex-G herewith).

8. It appears that departmental Appeal against Judgment dated 24-03-2009 by

FST was rejected by the honorable Supreme Court and pursuant thereto
Mrs. Naheed Naushahi was granted seniority and all back benefits by
departmental order dated 04-11-2011 for the period from 20-12-1999 to 28-
12-2005. (Departmental order dated 04-11-2011 is Annex-H herewith). The
Applicant herein has just about a week ago come to know through a
colleague about about order dated 04-11-2011 (Annex-H); hence this

9. That the honorable Supreme Court in the case titled Hameed Akhtar Niazi
versus Secretary Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 1185) was pleased to
hold that:

“We may observe that if the Tribunal or this Court decides a point of law relating
to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the civil
servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may not have taken any
legal proceedings, in such a case the dictates of justice and rule of good governance
demand that the benefit of the above judgment be extended to other civil servants
who may not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the
Tribunal or any other legal forum.”

10. It is submitted that as mentioned in paragraph 3 above, the case of the

Applicant herein is identical and similar to Mrs. Naheed Naushahi;
therefore benefit of the Judgment dated 24-03-2009 (Annex-F above) and
Departmental Order dated 04-11-2011 (Annex-H above) should also be
extended, as held by the honorable Supreme Court, to the Applicant herein
without approaching any legal/departmental forum.

In view of above, it is most humbly requested that the Applicant may very kindly
be allowed the benefit of her services from 20-12-1999 and seniority and all other
consequential benefits from 20-12-1999 to 13-07-2007 including period up to date
may very kindly be granted to the Applicant with any other entitlement arising
out of the facts above-mentioned.

Yours Obedient,

Naghma Adeeb,