CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- The appellant/petitioner filed.Petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal wherein the appellant/petitioner was not granted pro forma promotion with all back benefits while rejecting his representation. Leave was granted vide order, dated 20-4-2001. Hence, the present appeal.
2. The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that appellant joined his service as constable in Multan District on 30-10-1969. The appellant appeared in the competitive examination for admission to list B-1 held by the respondent on 11-4-1978 in accordance with the provisions of Police Rules, 19.14 and 13.10(I) of Police Rules, 1934. The appellant had passed the examination and secured 8th position in the merit list as depicted from the merit list -which is at page 20 of the paper book. Subsequently, name of the appellant was also appeared in the list B-I at Serial No,8 on 12-4-1978 which is at page 26 of the paper book. Respondent No,2 Deputy Inspector-General of Police Multan Range cancelled the said list vide its order, dated 30-7-1978. Haqnawaz constable along with 7 other colleagues being aggrieved had filed a joint appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal on the ground of discrimination as one of their colleagues namely Zafar Iqbal constable's representation against the aforesaid cancellation order, dated 30-7-1978 was accepted by the Inspector-General of Police. The learned Service Tribunal accepted the appeal vide its judgment dated 4-12-1985. Iqbal Ahmad respondent No,3 had also filed Appeal No,946 of 1987 on the basis of the judgment, dated 4-12-1985 against' the order, dated 30-7-1978 before the Punjab Service Tribunal which was also accepted and his name was also restored to list B-I. Consequently respondent No,3 was promoted as Offg. A.S.-I. Confirmed as A.S.-I. And then promoted S.-I. On the basis of the precedent of Haq Nawaz. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 had promoted one Iftikhar Ahmad who was batch mate as Head Constable of aforesaid Iqbal Ahmad (respondent No,3). He was promoted prior to him Respondent No,3 being aggrieved filed representation before the respondent No,1 for grant of pro forma promotion in all the above ranks from the dates of promotion of his batch mate. Respondent No,1 -accepted the same vide order, dated 17-1-1994.
Appellant came to know about the promotion orders of respondents Nos.3 to 5 his batch mates as Inspectors on 1-10-1995. Appellant submitted representation before the respondent No,1 on 8-10- 1995 which was rejected vide order, dated 23-11-1995. Appellant being aggrieved filed Appeal No,1 of 1996 before the Punjab Service Tribunal on 1-1-1996 which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 9-5-2000. The appellant being aggrieved filed aforementioned civil petition before this Court in which leave was granted.
3. The learned eounsel for the appellant submits that respondent No,1 erred in law to dismiss the representation of the appellant on 23-11-1995 without any justification and without adverting that the appellant had filed representation before him seeking relief which had already been granted to his other batch mate as the order of the respondent No,2 dated 30-7-1978 was set aside by the Service Tribunal in its judgment dated 4-12-1985. The learned Service Tribunal had also erred in law to dismiss the appeal of the appellant without any justification and did not advert to the real controversy arising between the parties. He further urges that learned Service Tribunal had erred in law to dismiss the appeal of the appellant merely on the ground that according to the rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, seniority is to be determined in a functional unit according to the principle laid down therein. As the appellant voluntarily joined the D.G. Khan Range, therefore, he cannot claim seniority over the officials of Multan Range. He further urges that on account of his joining other range does not mean that his lien in his parent range was ceased specially in the circumstances appellant was transferred from Multan Range to D.G. Khan Range under the orders of his superiors and he has not voluntarily joined D.G. Khan Range. He further maintains .That lien of the appellant is still in the Multan Range., therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of promotion as per list B-I dated 12-4-1978. He further submits that Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 would not be applicable in the case of the appellant because the appellant as mentioned above is still holding lien in the Multan Range. He further urges that on the basis of the transfer of the appellant from Multan Range to D.G. Khan Range his seniority/other benefits including promotion etc. To the next higher grade will not be disturbed in view of section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. In support of his contention, he relied upon Sajjad Hussain's case 1996 SCM R 284.
4. The learned Law Officer has supported the impugned judgment by submitting that respondent No,3 was promoted on 17-1-1994 and the appellant had filed representation on 8-10-1995 which was not filed by him within the prescribed period as depicted from reply in para.10 in the report and parawise comments of respondent No,2. He further urges that appellants had not filed any representation or appeal before the Service Tribunal against the order of the respondent No,2, dated 30-7-1978. He further urges that appellant was transferred on his request from Multan Range to D.G. Khan Range in the year 1982, therefore, he did not take any benefit of the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 4-12-1985 passed on the appeal filed by his batch mate Haqnawaz and 7 others before the Punjab Service Tribunal on the ground that he was no more at the strength of the Multan Range or as mentioned above at the strength of D.G. Khan Range on his own choice. He further submits that appellant was promoted from constable to the rank of Inspector w,e,f, 13-9- 1982 to 10-1-2003 in the D.G. Khan Range. He produced order, dated 4-9-1982 that appellant was transferred from Multan Range to D.G. Khan Range with mutual transfer with Abid Hussain. Copy of the same is placed on record. He sums up his arguments that appellant did not have any legal right to be granted pro forma promotion or seniority on the basis of the list prepared in the Multan Range in view of Rule 20.4 Police Rules, 1934.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:-
(i) Appellant was appointed as constable in Multan Region on 30-10-1969.
(ii) His name appeared at Serial No,8 in List B-I dated 12-4-1978. List B-I was cancelled by respondent No,2 on 30-7-1978. Appellant did not file any representation before any higher authority against the order of cancellation of list dated 30-7-1978 or to avail any other remedy available to him till 8-10-1995 representation was filed on 8-10-1995 before the respondent No,1). Appellant got mutual transfer along with Abid Hussain from Multan Range to Muzaffargarh on 4-9-1982.
(iii) Appellant was promoted as Head Constable w,e,f, 9/1982 in D.G. Khan Range and subsequently promoted to the rank of Inspector w,e,f, 10-1-2003 in D.G. Khan Range.
(iv) Respondents Nos.4 and 5 had filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal which was decided in the year 1985 and they were promoted subsequently in Multan Range.
(v) Muhammad Iqbal respondent No,3 had also filed appeal before the Punjab. Service Tribunal which was accepted vide judgment dated 7-1-1997 who was also promoted in the Multan Range,
(vi) Appellant filed a representation before the respondent No,1 on 8-10-1995 which was rejected on 23-11-1995 in the following terms:-- "After the amendment in Police Rule 13.20 there is no authority with the Inspector-General of Police Punjab to grant antedated seniority/promotion as such the petition of A.S.-I. Muhammad Ramzan No,164 has been filed by the Inspector-General of Police Punjab. He may please be informed accordingly."
(vii) Respondent No,3 was promoted on the basis of the judgment of the Service Tribunal on 17-1- 1994 as mentioned above appellant had filed representation on 8-10-1995.
6. In case the aforesaid facts are put in a juxtaposition it is crystal clear that the appellant had not filed representation against the order dated 30-7-1978 wherein respondent No,2 had cancelled the list B-1 containing the names of the appellant at Serial No,8. The respondents Nos.3 to 5 had filed appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore and on the basis of the direction of the learned Service Tribunal respondents Nos.1 and 2 had promoted them in Multan Range. It is also an admitted fact that appellant got his mutual transfer voluntarily from Multan Range to D.G. Khan Range with Abid Hussain coupled with the fact that appellant was promoted as Head Constable to Inspector in the Range of D.G. Khan. His batch mate in Multan Range had agitated the matter well in time before the Service Tribunal. The first judgment was rendered by the Service Tribunal in the year 1985 when the appellant had already transferred on his request in D.G. Khan Range. As the departmental representation of the appellant was admittedly filed by him before the departmental authority beyond the prescribed period, therefore, appeal filed by the appellant before the Punjab Service Tribunal was not competent as the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements, some of them are as follows:--
(i) Inayatullah's case 2006 SCM R 535; (ii) Unreported judgment dated 24-4-2006 in C.P. No,53/Q of 2004; (iii) Muhammad Younis's case 1989 SCM R 174; (iv) Nasim Malik's case PLD 1990 SC 951; (v)
Anwar-ul-Haq's'case 1995 SCM R 1505; (vi) Khyber Zaman's case 2004 SCM R 1426; (vii) Zafar Mehmood's case 1991 SCM R 640; (viii) Anwar. Muhammad's case 1995 SCM R 950; (ix) Asrar Ahmad Khan's case 1990 SCM R 1356 and (x) Ahsan Ali's case PLD 1969 SC 176 .
7. In view of what has been discussed above, the appeal filed by the appellant was not competent/maintainable in view of the aforesaid judgments as the appellant had not filed departmental representation within the stipulated period.
8. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.