Supreme Court Bars Retrospective Application of Seniority Rule

You are currently viewing Supreme Court Bars Retrospective Application of Seniority Rule

Date of Decision: 19 June 2025
Bench: Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb
Case: Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) vs. Noureen Ahmed & another

c.p._1002_2025Download

The dispute revolved around the inter-se seniority of officers of Pakistan Customs Service (PCS) belonging to the 24th and 25th Common Training Programs (CTP).

  • Respondent No. 1, Noureen Ahmed, qualified the CSS exam in 1996 and joined PCS in 1998 as Assistant Collector (BS-17).
  • FBR issued provisional and final seniority lists in 2008 and 2012 based on amended 1990 Rules (Probation, Training & Seniority Rules, amended in 2001), which pushed her to a lower seniority position.
  • She challenged the seniority list before the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), which in 2015 restored her seniority.
  • Similar relief was later extended to officers of the 24th CTP by the FST in 2017.

The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court through multiple appeals filed by FBR.

Litigation History

  1. FST Judgment (2015): Held that the 2001 amendments could not be applied retrospectively; Noureen’s seniority was restored.
  2. Supreme Court Judgments (2019): Affirmed the principle that once seniority and promotions are granted under an existing gradation list, later revisions are not permissible.
  3. Review Petitions by FBR: Dismissed in 2019 and 2020.
  4. Revised Seniority List (2022): FBR issued a fresh list but excluded Noureen from the benefits extended to the 24th CTP officers.
  5. Islamabad High Court (2025): Directed implementation of earlier judgments through FST.
  6. FST Order (March 2025): Ordered execution of judgments in favor of Noureen Ahmed.
  7. Current CPLA (2025): FBR again challenged before the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

  • Whether the 2001 amendments to the 1990 Rules could retrospectively affect the seniority of officers who had already completed probation and earned promotions.
  • Whether relief granted to one group of civil servants (24th CTP) could also be extended to another group (25th CTP) on the basis of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution.
  • Whether judgments in such service matters are in personam (binding only between parties) or in rem (binding on all similarly placed officers).

Supreme Court’s Observations

  • The Court reiterated that seniority is determined at induction and probation, and once promotions are granted, it cannot be altered through retrospective application of amended rules.
  • The judgments in earlier cases were effectively judgments in rem, and therefore, the benefit had to be extended to all similarly placed officers, including Noureen Ahmed.
  • The principle of uniform relief (Hameed Akhtar Niazi case, 1996 SCMR 1185) was reaffirmed, holding that similarly placed civil servants cannot be discriminated against.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court found no error in the FST’s implementation order and held that FBR had wrongly delayed compliance with binding judgments.

👉 Result: The Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (CPLA) filed by FBR was dismissed.

Implications

  • This case is a strong reaffirmation of the principle that service matters involving seniority must be decided uniformly and cannot be subjected to selective implementation.
  • It reinforces that Article 25 (Equality before Law) applies strongly in civil service seniority disputes.
  • The judgment serves as a precedent that once the Supreme Court settles a principle of law in service matters, the benefit extends to all similarly placed officers, whether they were direct parties or not.

✍ Author’s Note:
The judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring fairness and uniformity in civil service seniority disputes. It also serves as a warning to departments like FBR against adopting discriminatory practices when implementing court decisions.