' RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER).---Appellant in the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has prayed to declare that the appellant's appointment by adjustment through the order dated 20-9-1997 was correct in law and direct the respondents to pay his salary and allowances due as U.D.C. With effect from 20-9-1997; to set aside the order dated 15-6-1999 holding that his appointment against vacant post of U.D.C. Was correct and proper and no promotion order as such is required.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as U.D.C. In the Regional Passport Office Quetta vide order dated 25-9-1975, but after about two years of his service he submitted his resignation from service on 7-4-1977 while he was serving as U.D.C. At Karachi in the same Directorate which was accepted vide Order No,89/77 dated 21-5-1977. However, in the first week of July, 1977 he applied for withdrawal of his resignation from service as U.D.C. But his request was rejected vide letter dated 11-7-1977 and his service dues were ordered to be paid. On his approaches he was informed by the respondents vide letter dated 29-8-1977 that his name for appointment as LDC in the Directorate of Karachi has been approved and formal offer of appointment was sent to him vide Memorandum dated 3-9-1977, which was accepted by the appellant and he resumed his duties at L.D.C. Subsequently he was transferred to Larkana. On 20- 9-1977 Director South, Directorate Immigration and Passport Karachi issued a letter to the Deputy Assistant Director Regional Passport Office Karachi that the appellant be adjusted against vacant post of U.D.0 in the Regional Passport Office Larkana in accordance with Establishment Rules 108 to
113. The appellant had accordingly started performing his duties in the Larkana Office from the last week of September, 1977.
3. The grievance of the appellant was that in spite of the fact that he was adjusted against the vacant post of U.D.C. And was also allowed Pay and Allowances as L.D.C. But the said difference of Pay and Allowances as U.D.C. Were not paid to him till 7-4-1999. He submitted representation to the authorities. The Deputy Assistant Director in response to the representations of the appellant informed the appellant vide letter dated 15-6-1999 that he was neither elevated to the post of U.D.C. Nor recruited a fresh against the said post, against which he preferred departmental appeal on 24-6-1999 which remained unreplied, hence this appeal.
4. The respondents filed their Parawise Comments stating therein that the appellant had submitted his resignation at his own because of his personal problems, which was accepted by the competent authority. About 1 1/2/ months after acceptance of his resignation he requested for a job and keeping in view his earlier experience he was offered the post of L.D.C. On the terms and conditions mentioned in Office Order No,2987/75, dated 25-9-1975 which were accepted by him and he was appointed afresh as L.D.C. Thereafter on his request due to his personal problems he was transferred from Regional Passport Office D.I., Khan to Regional Passport Office Larkana. Since there was no post of L.D.C. He was adjusted against the post of U.D.C. In his own pay and scale under Establishment Division's Rules S. No,108-113. The name of the appellant was shown in the Seniority List of L.D.C's which was circulated to all concerned including the appellant and he was never agitated against it. It was also mentioned in Parawise Comments that the case of appellant for promotion can be considered on his turn in the cadre of L.D.C. But other officials who are senior to him cannot be ignored.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties and have gone through the record of the case.
6. It is an admitted position that the appellant had resigned from the post of U.D.C. And after some time he had requested for appointment and he was offered the post of L.D.C. Which he had accepted without any objection and continued to serve and draw the salary and allowances of L.D.C. And had never objected to the Seniority List of L.D.Cs issued since 1977. His appointment was a fresh one as L.D.C. And he cannot be allowed to jump over to the senior post of U.D.C. Superseding other L.D.C.s senior to him. Since there was no post of L.D.C. Available he was adjusted against the post U.D.C. For the purpose of only drawing salary in his own pay and scale viz., L.D.C. As permissible under Establishment Division's Rules S.No,108-113. According to the Civil Servants Act, 1973 a Civil Servant can only draw the pay and allowances of the post against which he is appointed. He was never appointed against the post of U.D.C. But was allowed to draw salary in his own pay and scale against the post of U.D.C. As clarified in preceding paragraphs.
7. We have come to the conclusion that this Tribunal cannot exercise the powers of the appointing authority to appoint that appellant as U.D.C. Which is the function of the department after due process and formalities of law and considering the case of the other officials relating to seniority and this in our opinion the appeal has no merit and is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters under registered cover under rule 21 of Service Tribunal.