The captioned appeals were disposed of by this Court through a short order in the following term: Short Order: "The detailed reasons will be recorded lateron.
The basic order which has been passed by the Department (Secretary) dated 10-7-2001 whereby a separate seniority list prepared by the department was withdrawn but the said order is not a speaking one and is lacking the detailed reasons as required under the law and also in order to ascertain what has compelled the authority to recall the earlier one for re-fixing the seniority.
Resultantly while setting aside the judgment of the Service Tribunal and that of the Secretary concerned, we remand the cases back to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department for passing a speaking order afresh with reasons thereto after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. However while passing any order under the law, he (Secretary/Authority) shall not be influenced by any observations made in the judgment of the Tribunal or by this Court.
The process be completed within a period of two months after the receipt of the order of this Court under intimation to the Deputy Registrar(Judicial) of this Court".
Ch. Uaz Ahmed, J.--Following are the detailed reasons for the short order mentioned above.
2. We intend to decide the captioned appeals by one consolidated order having similar facts and law arising out of the common judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 19.7.2002.
3. Appellants/petitioners filed CPLA Nos. 3490-L/2002, 3491-L/2002, 3556-L/02 and 3557-L/2002 respectively seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 19.7.2002 wherein appeals filed by the respondents Rana Muhammad Shafique and Rana Muhammad Yousif were accepted. The aggrieved persons as well as Chief Secretary etc. had filed aforesaid petitions which were fixed before this Court on 3.4.2003 and the leave was granted in the following term:-- "The question as to what is the legal status and rights of the employees of the extension side, functional unit and those who were working in extension wing as regards seniority and cadre etc require consideration being question of law of public importance, therefore, leave is granted to examine and consider the same."
4. The brief facts out of which the present appeals arise are that Respondents No. 5 and 6 filed appeals before the Service Tribunal challenging the vines of the various orders of the respondents including order dated 10.7.2001. The learned Service Tribunal accepted their appeals vide impugned judgments. Hence, the present appeals.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that there are three functional group consisting of economic wing, extension wing and research wing. Extension wing consisting of two wings namely extension wing and extension side. 1e further submits that learned Service Tribunal erred in law to decide the case in favour of the Respondents No. 5 and 6.in violation of the judgment of this Court dated 25.7.2000. The learned Service Tribunal had noted the contentions of the appellants' counsel in para 9 of the impugned judgment and rejected the same in para 10 to 13 without judicial application of mind and also erred in law to decide the case against the appellants on merits as evident from para 14 of the impugned judgment. He further maintains that learned Service Tribunal had decided the case against the appellants without adverting to the relevant rules which are at pages 66 to. 81 of paper book of CA 593 of 2003. The aforesaid rule clearly reveal functional unit extension wing as evident from Column No. 2 and the Service Tribunal erred in law to rely on Column No. 7 against Entry No. 4 wherein word extension side is mentioned. The combined seniority list has to be prepared in accordance with the Rule 14 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions) Rules, 1974.
6. The learned Law Officer submits that impugned judgment is not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Civil Servants Acts and rules framed thereunder.
7. The learned counsel for the private respondents in all the aforesaid appeals submits that learned Service Tribunal was justified to reject the preliminary objections raised by the appellant's counsel after noting in para 9 of the impugned judgment, with cogent reasons. Respondent Rana Yousif was inducted in the service of the Agricultural Department through public service commission on 9.4.1971 whereas the private appellants were appointed in Punjab Agriculture Extension developed project for a fixed period in the year 1980-81 who were declared subsequently surplus. They were absorbed in the Agriculture Department on 6.7.1989. He further maintains that functional unit according to the rules mentioned in Column No. 2 extension wing having different sub-branches consisting of more than 10. The appellants are belonging to the office of Director of Agriculture Adaptive (Research) whereas the respondents belong to Category No. 4 at page 67 of the paper book. He further maintain that seniority list of each branch were maintained separately till they were promoted to the rank of Grade-18. The combined seniority would be prepared thereafter for the purpose of promotion in BPS-19. He further submits that Muhammad Sarwar Shah filed Appeal No. 1767 of 1997 against the Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Secretary Agriculture Department and Director General of Agriculture Extension and Adaptive Research challenging the viries of the orders dated 27.12.1992, 20.5.1996 and 19.12.1996 whereby the officers junior to him had been promoted to the post of Director BS-19 on current charge basis. Appeal of Muhammad Sarwar Shah alongwith Appeal No. 1766 of 1997 were accepted by the Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 14.9.99 and directed the respondent department to make appointments from amongst the eligible officers on the basis of seniority list of Grade-18 officers of the Agriculture Department extension wing as it stood on 1.12.1987 strictly in accordance with Rules 1980.
Muhammad Yousif etc. the aggrieved person filed CP No. 77-L to 79 of 2000, 427-L/2000 and 632- L/2000 which were disposed off by this Court with the direction to the government to finalize the appointments on regular basis after complying with the relevant rules within 90 days from today under intimation to the Assistant Registrar of this Court seniority list which was stated to be under process would also be expedite within the shortest possible time but not later than 60 days from today. The government functionaries in-obedience of the direction of this Court dated 25.7.2000 had prepared separate list of the appellants and Respondents No. 5 and 6 on 12.10.2000. Thereafter combined seniority list was also prepared on 14.12.2000. Secretary to Government of the Punjab had withdrawn the separate list dated 12.10.2000 vide order dated 10.7.2001. Respondents No. 5 and 6 being aggrieved filed aforesaid appeals before the Service Tribunal which were allowed.
8. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is very painful to note that the matter in question between the parties relating to the seniority list but unfortunately neither the appellants nor the respondents had placed on record any of the seniority list. It is better and appropriate to reproduce basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- (i)This Court vide judgment dated 25.7.2000 passed in CP No. 632-L/2000 alongwith other petitions directed the government functionaries to resolve the issue of seniority of the employees of the Agriculture Department in the following term:-- "We, therefore, direct the Government to finalize the appointments on regular basis after complying with the relevant rules within 90 days from today under intimation to the Assistant Registrar of this Court. Seniority List, which is stated to be under process shall also be expedited within the shortest possible time but not latter than 60 days from today."
(ii)The respondents prepared the separate seniority list on 12.10.2000.
(iii)The combined seniority list was prepared on 14.12.2000.
(iv)The Secretary concerned had withdrawn the separate seniority list vide order dated 10.7.2001.
(v)Respondents No. 6 and 7 filed appeals before the Service Tribunal challenging the vines of the orders of the Agriculture Department including the order dated 10.7.2001.
9. In case the aforesaid facts are put in a juxta-position, then it is crystal clear that Respondents No. 5 and 6 had accrued vested right as the separate seniority list was prepared on 12.10.2000 which was subsequently withdrawn by the concerned Secretary on 10.7.2001 without assigning any reasons and without notice to Respondents No. 5 and 6 as is evident from the order dated 10.7.2001 which is reproduced hereunder:-- "No. SO(A-II) 9-1/2000(11). Separate seniority list of Deputy Directors of Agriculture(Extension/Deputy Director Agriculture (Training), in service Agricultural Training Institutes of Extension Wing of Agriculture Department as it-stood on 22.9.2000 issued vide this department's letter No. SO(A-II)9-1/2000(II), dated 12.10.2000, is hereby withdrawn ".
10. Mere reading of the aforesaid order clearly shows that the same was passed without notice to the Respondents No. 5 and 6, without any reasons and without application of mind. It is a settled law that principle of natural justice must be read in each and every statute unless it is prohibited by the wording of the statute as law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. Reference may be made to the - following judgments: (1)Fazalur Rehman 's case (PLD 1964 SC 410)
(2)Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd,'s case (1983 SCM R 1208)
(3)Public at Large case (PLD 1987 SC 304)
11. It is a settled law that public functionaries are duty bound to act in accordance with law without fear, favour and nepotism as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with Article 5 (2) of the Constitution as law laid down by this Court in Ch. Zahoor Elahi's case (PLD 1973 SC 383).
12. In view of what has been discussed above, the appeals are disposed of in terms of short order