Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui, Member.--Aggrieved by the non-consideration of his merits and promotion of Respondents 5 to 11 to BPS-21, junior to him in BPS-20, made vide order contained in Notification No, TDC-77/98 dated 29.1.1999 and after preferring a departmental appeal dated 3.2.1999 against the said order and having received no orders thereon, inspite of 90 days' statutory waiting period, the appellant preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on 18.5.1999, within 30 days after the lapse of the said 90 days' statutory waiting period, praying as under:-- "(a) admit the appeal and call for from Respondents Nos, 1 to 4 the record and documents pertaining to the promotion of Respondents Nos, 5 to 11 and the service records of the appellant and Respondents Nos, 5 to 11;
(b) after hearing the parties, set-aside the impugned order/Notification dated 29th January, 1999, and the consequential Notifications of the same date relating to posting of Respondents Nos, 45 to 11 and order/direct the Respondents Nos, 1 to 4 to consider the merits of the appellant for his promotion to BPS-21 on the same criteria as adopted in cases of Respondents Nos, 5, 8 and 9;
(c) direct Respondents Nos, 1 to 4 to assign proper seniority to the appellant in BPS-21 after his promotion to BPS-21, over Respondents Nos, 5 to 11; (d)allow consequential benefits of fixation of appellant's pay in BPS-21 with effect from due date of appellant's promotion to BPS-21 and payment of difference of pay and allowances; (e)pass any other order and make such directions which the Honourable Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and
(f) award costs of the appeal to the appellant.
2. Briefly, the facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant, a Graduate Engineer (Mechanical & Electrical) of 1962, was selected through Federal Public Service Commission in 1964 as Assistant Divisional Engineer (BPS-17), posted as Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation & Maintenance), Cento Microwave System at Quetta after completion of his training at Telecommunication Staff College, Haripur. After further training in U.K. in Satellite Communications from September 1968 to March, 1969, he was posted as Divisional Engineer for Establishment of Satellite Earth Station at Karachi where he remained from April 1969 to March 1971 and, thereafter, at Quetta till December 1974. He was again transferred to Karachi in the same capacity. Then he served on deputation to Ministry of Communications, Algeria for two years from July 1975 to July 1977. In August 1977, he was promoted to BPS-19 and posted as Director (Development) T&T Department, Karachi. In the meantime, he completed the advance course in Administration and Development held from March 1982 to June 1982 at National Institute of Public Administration (NIPA), Karachi, which made him eligible for his promotion to BPS-20. Subsequently, the appellant was posted as Deputy Chief Engineer (Long Distance) in T&T Headquarters, Islamabad from July 1986 to August 1988; Director (Telephones) for operation and Maintenance at Karachi Telecommunication Network from September 1988 to June 1990; Director (Development) and Director (Coordination) in Karachi Telecommunication Region from July 1990 to August 1992; Director (Training) Karachi for supervision of Special In-service Courses at Training Centres of Sindh and Baluchistan from September 1992 to May, 1993; officiated as General Manager, Southern Telecommunication Region, Karachi from May 1993 to February 1994; officiated as General Manager (BPS-20) for Operation and Maintenance of Switching and Transmission Network of Karachi Telecommunication Region from March 1994 to April 1997 and, thereafter, he attended a special course in France for Management of Digital Telephone Network from April 1994 to May 1994. In May 1997, he was transferred and posted as General Manager Operation and Maintenance) (BPS-20). Telecommunication Region-V, Sukkur.
In that year, he was due for promotion to BPS-20, but he was such pervaded by his juniors due to missing of his three ACPs, however, subsequently, he was promoted to BPS-20. He was retrospectively promoted and his original seniority was retained vide notification dated 25.9.1997.
He was, accordingly, placed at Serial No, 1 in the seniority list.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that inspite of his meritorious and unblemished service record, his juniors were promoted during the period prior to restoration of his seniority in BPS-20 and subsequently also he was ignored for his promotion to BPS-20 and his juniors, Respondents-6 to 11, has been promoted to the pok of Director General (BPS-21), vide notification dated 29.1.1999, whereas, through the same notification Irfan Ali Khan, Respondent No, 5, had been approved/promoted to hold post/current charge of Director General (Operations), South, P.T.C.L., Headquarters at Karachi (BPS-21). The appellant challenged the above notification dated 29.1.1999 in'C.P. No, D-142/1999 before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh at Sukkar, which was transferred to Karachi and re-numbered as C.P. No, D266/1999. The said C.P. was dismissed in limine for reasons to be recorded lateron, but the appellant was not able to obtain a copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Simultaneously, with the above C.P. before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, the appellant had filed a departmental appeal dated 3.2.1999 against the order dated 29.1.1999, leading to the filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal, as already mentioned above.
4. The Respondents-3 to 5 resisted the appeal by filing their written comments. Other Respondents did not contest the appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. The impugned order of promotion is reproduced as under:-- Secret Most Immediate By fax Government of Pakistan Ministry of Communications No, PA/DS(II)/99-IIIIslamabad, the 29th January 1999.
Subject: Promotion to the Rank of Director General (BPS-21)
Kindly refer to PTCL Hqs. U. 0. No, M (Admn)/MISC/99/826 dated 26th January 1999 enclosing therewith Working Paper and Addendum regarding promotion of PTCL officers from BPS-20 to BPS- 21 to the rank of Director General.
2. The competent authority has been pleased to approve the promotion of the following officers of PTCL to the rank of Director General (BPS-21):
1. Mr. Muhammad Shafi.. Seniority Position No, 3.
2. Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Raja.. Seniority Position No, 4.
3. Mr. Khalid Habib.. Seniority Position No, 5.
4. Mr. Arjumand A. SheikhSeniority Position No, 6.
5. Mr. Muhammad Afzal.. Seniority Position No, 7.
6. Mr. Noor-ud-Din Baqai.. Seniority Position No, 9.
3. The competent authority has been pleased to approve Mr. Irfan Ali Khan, General Manager (STR- II), Karachi to hold the current charge of the post of the Director General (BPS-21).
4. The competent authority has also been pleased approve the supersession of the following officer of PTCL:
1. Mr. Abid Ali Jamali.. Seniority Position No, 1.
2. Mr. Mueen Sadiq Mallik.. Seniority Position No, 8.
5. The competent authority has also been pleased to approve the up-gradation of the post of Managing Director, CTI from BPS-20 to BPS-21 with immediate effect.
6. It is requested that further necessary action may kindly be taken, accordingly.
Sd/- (M. Arshad Malik)
Deputy Secretary Tel: 9216279 Mr. Nasim S. Mirza, Chairman, PTCL Headquarters, Islamabad."
The above promotion of six officers and supercession of two officers, named above, was done in accordance with the Promotion Policy dated 15.5.1985, as amended from time to time. The Guidelines for Departmental promotion committees/central selection boards, as per the said policy are as under:-- "I. General
1. The DPC/CSB shall consider the cases of eligible civil servants in order of seniority and either:--
(a) recommend a civil servant for promotion to the next higher post; or recommend a civil servant for supersession; or
(c) defer consideration of a civil servant's promotion provided that this step will be taken only if
(i) CR dossier is incomplete or any other document/information required by the DPC/CSB for determining a civil servant's suitability for promotion is not available; or
(ii) disciplinary or departmental proceedings are pending against the civil servant whose promotion case comes up for consideration before the DPC/CSB; or (iii)the civil servant is on deputation abroad to a foreign government private organization or international agency; or
(iv) the civil servant does not possess the requisite length of service; or
(v) the civil servant has not undergone the prescribed training or passed the departmental examination for reasons beyond his control; or
(v) The civil servant's inter se seniority is subjudice.
2. If a civil servant is superseded he will not be considered for promotion unless he has earned one more CR for one full year.
3. The civil servant whose promotion has been deferred will be considered as soon as the reason on the basis of which deferment took place ceases to exist provided that a civil servant falling in the category mentioned in I (c)(iii) above will be considered for promotion only on his return- to Pakistan. If such an officer fails to return on expiry of his approved deputation period, he will have to earn at least one ACR after his return to Pakistan before he is considered for promotion.
4. For the purpose of consideration by the DPC/CSB the ACRs will be quantified according to the formula given in the addendum. The civil servants who fail to come up to the qualifying score shall not normally be considered for promotion. Relaxation of this condition may only be recommended by the DPC/CSB after recording detailed reasons for the approval of the competent authority.
II. Promotion on Seniority-cum-Fitness Basis.
III. Promotion to Selection Posts.
1. Posts in basic pay scale 19 or higher are selection posts. Promotions to these posts are to be processed through the Central Selection Boards.
2. In order to ensure that selection by these Boards does not amount to a mere elimination of the unfit Establishment. Division shall place a larger panel of eligible officers before the Boards.
Depending on the availability of eligible officers in a cadre, the number of officers to be included in the panel shall be as follows:--
(a) for promotion to supervisory posts A minimum of 2 officers for every vacancy.
(b) For promotion to middle and senior management posts A minimum of 3 officers for every vacancy.
3. For selection posts, entries under "quality and output of work" and "Integrity" in all the Act accorded on the civil servant during his service as an officer will also be qualified in accordance with formula given in the Addendum. These marks shall be a crucial factor in determination comparative merit of officers for promotion to selection posts.
4. Posts carrying basic pay scale 19 are generally supervisory posts (a)........................................................................
(b)........................................................................
(c)........................................................................
(d)........................................................................
(e)........................................................................
(i) ........................................................................ (ii) ........................................................................
(g) ........................................................................
(i) ........................................................................
(ii) ........................................................................
(iii) ........................................................................
(iv) ........................................................................
6. Posts carrying basic pay scale 21 fall in senior management involving important policy-making or extensive administrative jurisdictions. In addition to the circulation value and variety of experience the incumbents must possess proven analytical competence, breadth of vision, emotional maturity and such other qualities as determine the potential for successfully holding posts in top. management. This potential cannot be judged by mathematical formula. The Selection Board will have to apply its collective wisdom to determine the same. A civil servant must fulfil the following conditions for promotion to senior management post:--
(a) Qualifying Service: possess 22 years service as an officer subject to the provisions contained Establishment Division's O.M. No, 1/9/80-R-II(A), dated 2.6.1983.
(b) Eligibility threshold: attain a minimum score of 70 marks in CRs in accordance with the formula given in the Addendum.
(c) Qualifications; as are prescribed by relevant recruitment rules.
(d) Relevance of Experience: possess experience relevant to the functions of the post being filled by promotion.
(f) Variety of Experience: the Selection Board should give careful consideration to the nature of duties, duration and location of posts previously held by the officer. At this level, a proper assessm ent under the criterion may require some distinction between hard or taxing assignments (on account of work load or its complexity) viz-a-viz relatively routine duties particularly in the secretariat. Depending on the posts to be filled, an officer possessing well rounded experience with adequate exposure to difficult assignments should normally be preferred.
(g) Training should have successfully completed a regular course at the Pakistan Administration of College/National Defence College. This requirement will be waived for officers who:
(i) have served as head of a training institution for at least one year; or
(ii) have served on the directing staff of a training institution for at least two years; or
(iii) have exceeded the age of 56 years.
(h) Top Management Potential: since officers promoted to this level may be cited upon to hold independent charge to a Ministry/ Director or to head a major corporation, the Board should satisfy about the officer's maturity, balance and ability to assume such top management positions even at short notice.
IV. Specialist Cadres Part II and III of the guidelines will not be strictly applicable to civil servants who are in specialist cadres such as doctors, teachers and professors, research scientists and incumbents of purely technical posts for promotion within their own line of specialism. (The criteria for promotion in their case would continue to be the technical qualifications, experience and accomplishments (research, publications etc.) relevant to their specialism.)"
In accordance with the above Promotion Policy of 1985, qualification, as laid down in the guidelines, was done in respect of nine officers of BPS-20 for promotion to BPS-21. The qualification is as under: "S. No,Name of OfficersQuantification of ACRS DOMICILE R E M A R K S O/A Q&D INTEGRITY MORALINTEL
1. Mr. Abid Ali Jamali71.04 72.42 77.27 76.51Sindh (U)
Quantification upto 1998
2. Mr. Irfan Ali Khan seniority disputer86.53 77.4572.50 73.76Sindh (U)
Quantification upto 1998 3.Mr. Muhammad Shaifi76.76 76.70 76.40 75.30Sindh (U)
Quantification upto 1998 4.Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Raja77.56 83.03 88.75 88.75Sindh (U)
Quantification upto 1998 5.Mr. Khalid Habib78.95 81.9773.25 73.25Sindh (U)
Quantification upto 1998 6.Mr. Arjumand A. Sheikh73.27 76.94 69.76 71/63Sindh (U)
Quantification upto 1998
7. Mr. Muhammad Afzal78.64 76.95 85.97 85.97Sindh (U)
Quantification upto 1998 8.Mr. Moin Sadiq Malik8 0 . 3 3 7 7 . 6 0 74.60 73.90Sindh (U)
Quantification upto 1998
9. Mr. Noor-ud- Din Baqai9 0 . 3 8 9 3 . 2 0 91.70 88.60Sindh (U)
Quantification upto 1998 From the above chart of quantification, it is apparent that appellant Abid Ali Jamali and Arjumand A. Sheikh had not secured the requisite 75 marks.
7. The Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Respondents had wilfully violated the Promotion Policy of PTCL officers from BPS-20 to BPS-21 in the year 1999 and that double standard and criteria had been adopted to include junior officers who, otherwise, could not have been promoted on merit to fill up the number of available vacant posts in Grade-21.at the time of promotion in 1999. In that respect, he pointed out that Irfan Ali Khan, who was at Serial No, 22 in the seniority list, had secured less than 75 marks under the head of 'integrity' (moral and intellectual), which was a crucial factor for consideration of promotion. Further that the Intelligence Bureau had specifically advised the PTCL through the- Ministry of Telecommunication not to consider his name for posting at Karachi being junior most and also involved in other unlawful activities outside his assigned functions. About Arjumand A. Sheikh and Khalid Habib, the learned counsel pointed out that their score of 'integrity' count (both 'moral' and intellectual') was less than the prescribed limit of 75 marks, whereas, the overall score of Arjumand A. Shaikh was 73.27 after adding '2' marks of his total under head of 'serving in a training institution'. The learned counsel stated that the appellant had also served as Director 'Training School (RTTS). Karachi during 1990- 92, but he was not given the benefits of '2' marks; that if two marks had been added to over all score of the appellant, it would have become equal to overall score of Arjumand A. Sheikh and in that case, having the first position in the seniority list and better score under 'integrity', he would have better chance for promotion than Arjumand A. Sheikh; that depriving the appellant of the two marks amounted to duality of standard adopted by the Respondents in considering the promotion of the appellant. The Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant having been deprived of promotion to BPS-21 in violation of the promotion policy, is entitled to the grant of proforma promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, but he conceded that the Appellate had since retired on 16.3.2000, during the pendency of this appeal. proforma promotion could not be granted to him, but the appellant would be entitled to the financial benefits till the date of his retirement and the pensionary benefits accordingly. The learned counsel relied on 2005 PLC (CS)
440 (Abdul Hameed vs. Secretary Zakat and Ushr Department, Government Punjab and another).
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 5 contended that the case for promotion of the appellant had been properly considered by the departmental selection board of PTCL in accordance with the promotion policy and the appellant was superceded on account of securing less than the requisite qualification marks. The learned counsel argued that the appellant . was again considered for promotion 'i,e, on 13.12.1999, but he was recommended for supercession in view of his qualification score being below the 'minimum required' and vide notification dated 16.12.1999, he was superceded by Moin Sadiq Malik, Muhammad Aslam and Zahn. Muhammad Khan, who were promoted to the post of Director General . (BPS-21). The learned counsel, argued that the appellant had been superceded again on 16.12.1999, but he had not challenged his such supercession, therefore, the present appeal was not maintainable under Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973. He relied on 1977 PLC (CST) 1(2), 1985 PSC 1190, 1991 PLC (CS) 257 and PLD 1997 SC 382. The learned counsel also argued that no antedated promotion, after retirement, could be given to the appellant. In support of his argument, he relied on a judgment dated 24.10.2005 passed by this Tribunal in Appeals Nos, 1062 and 1063(K)/1999. He also relied on 2003 PLC
(CS) 212.
9. We have carefully considered the above arguments of both sides and perused the authorities, cited at the bar. Para-4 of the above-said guidelines is reproduced as under: For the purpose of consideration by the DPC/CSB the ACRs will be quantified according to the formula given in the addendum. The civil servants who fail to come up to the qualifying score shall not normally be considered for promotion. Relaxation of this condition may only be recommended by the DPC/CSB after recording detailed reasons for the approval of the competent authority."
A perusal of the above para shows that the relaxation in quantification can be granted by the competent authority, but where criteria for promotion in case of specialist cadres such as, doctors, teachers and professors, research scientists and incumbents of purely technical posts for promotion within their own line of specialism are relaxed then the criteria will be technical qualifications, experience and accomplishments (research, publications etc.,) relevant to their specialism of the concerned officers. In the instant case, vis-a-vis the appellant it was only Arjumand A. Sheikh, whose over all score was 73.27 i,e, less than the requisite 75 marks. The contention of the appellant that he was not given the benefit of two marks, otherwise, his overall score would have been equal to his junior Atjumand A. Sheikh. The plea of addition of two marks had not been taken by the appellant in his memo of appeal and such plea was taken only during the course of arguments. Nevertheless, we have examined this plea and we find that in para-6 of his memo of appeal the appellant has stated that he worked as Director (Training), Karachi or supervision of Special In-service Courses at Training Centres of Sindh and Baluchistan from September 1992 to May 1993. Obviously, this period is less than the requisite period of two years for entitlement of addition of two marks in the overall qualification. Lateron in his written arguments, in para-4, the appellant had stated that he had also teaching background at Mehran Engineering University of two years and on that account also he was entitled to the addition of two marks to his overall score of quantification. We find ourselves unable to accept such contention of the appellant for the reasons that he had not so stated in his memo of appeal, and secondly for the reason that addition in overall qualification of two marks pertains to serving in a Training Institution and not for teaching experience.
10. So far as the case of Irfan Ali Khan is concerned, suffice it to say that he was not promoted nor given acting charge, but he was given current charge of the post of BPS-21. As per Rule 8B(4) of the Civil Servants, (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973, acting charge appointment is made on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Central Selection Board, as the case may be, against posts which are likely to fall vacant for a period of six months or more and for such appointment most senior officer otherwise eligible for promotion in the organization, cadre or service, as the case may be, is appointed by the appointing authority, if it is satisfied that no suitable officer is available, against vacancies occurring for less than six months, current charge appointment may be made according to the orders issued from time to time.
11. The current charge is in no way equivalent to promotion and consideration of seniority is also not attached to it under the rules. It is a sort of stop-gap-arrangement. Irfan Ali Khan was, no doubt, junior to the appellant and his seniority was also, admittedly, under dispute. As such, without the question of his seniority being cleared, preferring him over to the appellant, apparently amounts to putting the horse before the card, but then the justification of giving him current charge has been given in the addendum to the working paper for promotion to the .rank of Director General as under:
2. Mr. Irfan Ali Khan. His performance on Overall basis and Quality and Output of work is highly satisfactory.
He has shown excellent performance as G.M. at Karachi and has introduced several measures whereby leakages have been effectively reduced and customer services have improved noticeably. He is also considered the best available person to be given the charge of DG (Operations) South, the post located-at Karachi.
There was an observation of I.B. regarding possibility of some political links of Mr. Irfan Ali Khan. However, no such links have come to the notice of PTCL management."
Similarly, the justification for promotion of Khalid Habib and Arjumand A. Sheikh was given in such paper as under: "5. Mr. Khalid Habib. Mr. Khalid Habib is working creditably as M.D. CTL.. His quantification score as regards Overall Performance and Quality and Output of Work are way above the minimum prescribed.
Judging him by his performance at the present job where he has been instrumental in getting ISO certificate for CTI and has increased the profitability of the organization, it is recommended that he may be promoted to B-21 and may continue working on the same post. The post of MD CTI may be upgraded to B-21 to give effect to his promotion.
6. Mr. Arjumand A. Sheikh The officer is technically well-qualified. He may be promoted with the condition that he will continue to hold the charge of Member (Technical) NTC till his retirement, which is due in the near future."
For supersession of the appellant Abid Ali Jamali, the justification was given as under: "Mr. Abid Ali Jamali He is far too deficient in the quantum score pertaining to Overall Performance and .
Quality and Output. No recommended for promotion."
12. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has not spelt out any specific grievance against Respondents Nos, 6,.7, 10 & 11; hence, we have considered the reasons and justification for supersession of the appellant and current charge given to Irfan Ali Khan and promotion to Khalid Habib and Arjumand A. Sheikh. On the above justification, the competent authority had taken the decision of the supersession of the appellant and current charge and promotion of the officers, named above. Nevertheless, we have to observe that scoring of remarks under the head of integrity' had not been properly considered by the D.P.C. However, the competent authority had the power of relaxation in the quantification score, but in that case, the criteria was the technical qualifications, experience and accomplishments ( research, publications etc.) relevant to their specialism. We find that no comparative study or chart was prepared based on these factors for consideration of promotion; hence, we find some justification in the cry of the 'appellant, but the Tribunal has no power to substitute its opinion as against the opinion of the competent authority and grant back-date proforma promotion to the appellant, whose higher score of 'integrity' is unfavorably offset by lower `overall scoring' and scoring under the head of 'quality output'. The Tribunal C has, however, the power to remit the case of the appellant for reconsideration of his case of promotion to the D.P.C., (for consideration of the factors such as qualification, experience and accomplishments), the DPC does not appear to have adverted to, but that is not possible now for the reasons that the appellant as well as other private Respondents (6 to 11) have since retired.
Secondly, that the appellant had already been reconsidered for promotion on 16.12.1999, after filing of this appeal. After his supersession for second time, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant was required to amend his appeal and implead in the appeal the three officers, namely, Moin Sadiq Malik, Muhammad Aslam and Zahir Muhammad Khan, but that was not done by him, therefore the 'position that has emerged is that the supersession of the appellant had gone unchallenged and had attained finality. Thus, his appeal had become infructuous and he was not entitled to any promotion or any back benefits after his retirement and with the retirement of all concerned viz: the private respondents. This view was taken by us in our judgment dated 24.10.2005 passed by this Tribunal in Appeals. Nos, 1062 and- 1063(K)/1999, which judgment was supported by the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported in 2003 PLC (CS) 212 (Government of Pakistan through Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others vs. Hameed Akhtar Niazi, Academy of Administrative Training Walton, Lahore & others), relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under: "----S. 9--Service Tribunal Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4--Promotion-- Selection post and non-selection post--Criterion for promotion--Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal--Scope Criterion for promotion in case of selection post is merit, while in case of non-selection post it is on the basis of seniority- cum-fitness--Criterion for selection for promotion to the higher grade rests upon decision of the competent authority--No other forum/Authority can assume the duties, which specifically have been assigned to the competent authority--Seniority is one of the factors, which is considered for promotion, but seniority alone is not enough--Promotion is not automatic but it depends on many other factors, such as, competence, availability of post and antecedents etc. and none of the said factors is less important than seniority and for promotion all these factors, on case to-case basis, are to be considered--Benefits of promotion, on the basis of improved seniority, as a matter of right in selection grade, cannot be claimed nor the Service Tribunal in appeal is competent to grant the same from back date, as the same is explicitly beyond its jurisdiction-- Requirements for promotion having not been examined by the competent authority at the relevant time, promotion could not be granted by the Service Tribunal. Civil servant cannot ask for promotion as a right, and granting or refusal of promotion is a matter, which is within the exclusive domain of the Government/ Executive Authority--If promotion is denied to a civil servant it could not be termed as denial of any fundamental right."
13. Relying on the above authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and our own judgment, referred to above, as also, for the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
14.Copies of this Judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters as per Rule 21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.