M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).---In this case the appellant, M. M. Yunus, has challenged his seniority against the persons mentioned at Serial Nos.4 to 48 in the Seniority List published by the Government of Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department on 14-10-1972. His name appears at Serial No. 49.
2. Briefly his case is that he joined service as temporary Engineer on 3-1-1946 and was selected for appointment in P. S. E. Class II through the Public Service Commission on 23-8-1950 and was confirmed as such from aforesaid date. He was promoted as Executive Engineer in the officiating capacity on 21-6-1951. He continued to serve in the officiating capacity till January, 1954, when he suffered some mental ailment and proceeded on three months' leave. On his return in April, 1954, the then Government of Punjab aide. Secretary Canal Wire letter No. 908-E/54, dated 24-4-1954, posted him as S.D.O., Uqbana Sub-Division, LCC West Circle (copy of order is Annex. 'C)' at page 14 of the appeal). He was reappointed as officiating Exe--cutive Engineer on 6-10-1955 and was confirmed in the capacity of Executive Engineer on 1-1-196. According to his above data, he was assigned the seniority at Serial No. 49 in the Seniority List published by the Govern--ment of Punjab on 14-10-1972 which the appellant impugned before us. Earlier the appellant also appears to have made a representation in 1967 to claim his seniority on the basis of his appointment as Executive Engineer with effect from 21-6-1951. The representation was considered and rejected by the, Department primarily on the grounds that the appellant had accepted without protest his appointment as S.D.O. In 1954 for full 13 years and his claim suffered from laches and was time- barred. The Chief Engineer under whom the appellant was serving at the time of making representation also did not support his claim. The Department was also of the view that be that as it may the appellant had of aced to officiate in the capacity of Execu--tive Engineer with effect from 24-4-1954. 'therefore, he could not be considered to be continuously "officiating as Executive Engineer" with effect from 1951. It may also be noticed that the order of his appointment as XEN with effect from 25-6-1955 and posting in place of Mr. Abdul Karim could not materialise as Mr. Abdul Karim did not vacate the charge. Consequently the orders had to be cancelled on 27-9-1955 and fresh appoint--ment orders were issued in favour of the appellant with effect from 6-10-1955. It was from that date that the appellant was continuously officiating as Execu--tive Engineer.
3. The contention of appellant in this appeal is that since there were no specific orders of his reversion as SDO, therefore, he was entitled to count his seniority with effect from 21-6-1951 when he was originally promoted as officiating Executive Engineer. He also placed reliance on the provisions contained in Rule 15(6) of 1941 Pb. PSE Class I Rulers, which read as follows:- "(6) A member recruited by promotion who has completed 12 years' service in the Class 11 Service, and who is reported to be fully qualified to hold charge of a division will be recruited with the rank of Execu--tive Engineer, and a member recruited by promotion who has less than 12 years' service in the Class II Service, who is reported to be fully qualified to hold charge of a division will be promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer on completing 12 years combined service in the Class It and Class I Services, but such promotion shall not establish a right to be placed incharge of a division unless a divisional charge is available."
The contention of the appellant was that the physical holding of the divisional charge was not an essential condition to count seniority in PSE Class I (Seniority). Thus the interruption in the case of appellant to hold the divisional charge was no material consequence. In view of the above the appellant seeks the rectification in his seniority to the extent that he should be treated to have been promoted as XEN on regular basis with effect from 21-6-1951 and was entitled to count his seniority in the cadre of Class I (Seniority) from the said date.
4. In rebuttal the department, in the first instance, submitted that the appeal is not maintainable as the appellant's representation against the treat--ment meted out to him in 1954 and the consequence effect of the same upon his seniority was rejected in 1967. A copy of the order is available at page 14 bf the appeal. Thus the Government Pleader contended that as the claim of the appellant to seniority as XEN since 21-6-1951 had been rejected some- where in 1967, i.e. Long before 1-7-1969, therefore this Tribunal had no jurisdiction and leas precluded to entertain the controversy in question. Secondly, the objection of the Department was that the appellant was con--firmed as Executive Engineer with effect from 1-1-1966 vide order dated 14-10-1972 which determined the seniority of the appellant as such and the appellant never represented against the date of confirmation assigned to him before any departmental authority, which implied that he had accepted the same. In view of the sane the appellant was estopped to dispute the seniority based upon his confirmation with effect from 1-1-1966. It was next submitted by the Department that this appeal was instituted in 1972 which came to be heard by this Tribunal by virtue of section 10 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 according to which all pending cases before the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunal stood transferred to this Tribunal. Thus the jurisdiction of this Tribunal was the same as enjoyed by the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal which had no jurisdiction to go into the matter of confirmation. Reliance was placed in this behalf on In re : Amina Month v. Secretary, to Government of Punjab (1971 PLC (C. S. T.) 207). The respondent-Department relying upon the ruling above argued that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this case to go into the question of confirmation and this appeal has to be decided on the assumption that the confirmation of the appellant with effect from 1-1-1966 was final. Lastly the objection of the Government Pleader was that the appellant in any case was promoted in 1951 merely ova officiating basis and the aforesaid promotion could not ensure to the benefit of the appel--lant in the matter or, seniority.
5. After hearing both the parties we are clearly of the view that this appeal has no merit and had to be dismissed. In the first instance the appellant has not been able to show that any final orders had been passed against him on or after 1-7-1969 or that the decision on the representation of the appellant (at page 14 of appeal) was not the final order. Thus in the circumstances the conclusion is inescapable that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the controversy and to adjudicate upon the same. The appellant has not been able to show to us that he has made any representation' against his confirmation as Executive Engineer with effect from 1-1-1966 vide order dated 14-10-1972. In the absence of any such representation the confirmation of the appellant in the capacity of Executive Engineer from 1-1-1966 has to be taken as final for the purposes of this appeal. Para. 17(b) of the West Pakistan Integration Circular dated 25-11-1955 which regulated the seniority on 1-1-1966 laid down the date of-substantive appointment to the service as the basis of seniority. Thus the appellant was entitled to count his seniority in Class I (Senior) with effect from 1- 1-1966 which has already been allowed to him. In this context his officiating as Executive Engineer with effect from 21-6-1951 was of little consequence.
In view of the above, we do not feel called upon to express any opinion on the rest of the two contentions raised by the Government Pleader. Conse--quently the appeal is rejected with no order as to costs.