M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-----Munir Alam and six others ex-War Servicemen have filed this appeal to claim the benefit of War Service rendered by them.
2. The particulars about the appointments of the appellants in the Board of Revenue and their presumptive dates of appointments after allowing the benefit of War Service, are as under:-- Sr.
No.Name of the appellant.Date of appointment in the Deptt. as Jr. Clerk.Presumptive dates of appointments after allowing the benefit of War Service---- As Jr. Clerk.Sr.
Clerk.Asstt.
1Munir Alam. 19-8-1947 21-3-4612-10- 195030-9- 1955 2Abdul Majeed Bajwa.8-2-1949 24-5-4628-10- 195030-9- 1955 3Rao Liaqat Ali Khan.1-3-1950 11-5-461-2- 19517-1- 1956 4S. Altaf Hussain Jafri5-11-1949 4-8-465-4- 19517-1- 1956 5Abdul Hameed.16-11-1950 16-4-471-8- 19517-1- 1956 6Samuel. 23-4-1951 26-6-1947 7Muhammad Siddiq Rana.22-6-1949 9-1-1948 (appointed as Private Secretary)
3. The above dates were worked out by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, for the purpose of determination of seniority of the appellants by granting the War Service benefits under rule 6 of the Punjab Government Servants (War) Amendment Rules, 1943. It was done in the light of Services, Genl. Admn. And Information Department's instructions contained in their circular No. S(R)73/2- 6/65-SO, XIII, dated 13-3-1971, dated 16-1-1968 and letter No. SOR(III) 13-3/71, dated 16.3-1971.
4. The claim of the appellants was rejected by the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, vide his order dated 8-11-1974, in the following terms- "In view of the fact that their presumptive dates fall after 1-1-1946, it cannot be presumed that they had been appointed against the posts before 1-1-1946 had the War not intervened."
5. The present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 3-1-1975. The appellants in this appeal, submitted that they were appointed against the vacancies reserved for War Service candidates.
The appellants explained that the Department had conceded before the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal In re Rashid Ahmad v. Board of Revenue, that there were in all 28 vacancies available for War Service candidates which were filled by persons with no war service to their credit. The Board of Revenue, Punjab, considered the matter on 12-6-1971 when 19 persons with War Service were appointed, but the appellants' claim was rejected on 8-11-1974 with the observations reproduced above. The contention of the appellants was that it was nowhere held by the Department that they were not appointed to the vacancies reserved for War Service candidates. In fact, their claim was rejected merely on the ground that even after allowing the benefit of War Service, their dates of appointment did not fall between the period 18-9-1943 to 1-1-1946. The appellants submitted that the view taken by the Board of Revenue was wholly erroneous inasmuch as the only relevant factor to determine the admissibility of the War Service benefit was as to whether the appointment held by the appellants was made against any of the vacancies reserved for War Service candidates. Their assumed dates of appointments after allowing War Service benefit was irrelevant. In this behalf, reliance was placed on the instructions of the S&GAD contained in their letter No. S(R)2971/2-4/61-SO-XIII, dated 10th April, 1965- " . . . . . . Further effect of the provisions of sections 2 and 3 read together with Punjab Government Services (War) Amendment, Rules West Pakistan (Repeal) Ordinance, 1963, is that the concession in the matter of seniority may be granted only to the persons who were appointed to reserved vacancies, while the seniority of the persons who were to a non-reserved vacancy is to be determined in accordance with the Service Rules and in both the cases the consideration, whether the appointment was made before the First day of January, 1946, or after is of no consequence."
6. The appellants thus argued that the view taken by the Board of Revenue was contrary to the instructions of S&GAD and also by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Akhtar Hussain and others v.
Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 146). The appellants also relied upon other precedents in case of Abdul Ghani, Assistant, Finance Department Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Assistant, C & M Wing, S&GAD and Mr. Ahmad Jan Khan, Assistant, Directorate of Immigration and Passports, Government of Pakistan, Lahore, in similar circumstances had been allowed the benefit of War Service. It was also contended that there was no special denial that the appellants were not appointed to the vacancies reserved for War Service candidates.
7. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appeal is barred by time inasmuch as the Board of Revenue, Punjab, has rejected their cases, in the first instance on 6-4-1971 and again on 12-6-1961, and thus the appellants slept over the matter for considerable time which disentitled them to the relief from this Tribunal. The respondents also contended that rule 6 of the Punjab Government Servants (War) Service Rules, 1943, did nut create any specific right in favour of the appellants inasmuch as it laid down that the benefit was to be given as nearly as possible. It was submitted that the appellants having been appointed in 1947, were not intended to be appointed against any War Service vacancy. Thus the claim of the appellants is not acceptable.
8. After hearing the contentions of the respondents, we find. That the same cannot be allowed to prevail. We find that the final order was passed on 8-11-1974 (Annexure `G') and the appellants were entitled to file the appeal within six months of the establishment of this Tribunal which falls some-- where in January, 1975. The appeal having been filed on 3-1-1975, was clearly in time. Thus the objection is overruled.
9. Even with regard to the appointment of the appellants, we find, after perusal of the relevant records, that the claim of the appellants that they were appointed against War Service vacancies, was never rejected by the department. In fact, it was conceded by the Department before the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal, in the case Re : Rashid Ahmad v. Govern--ment, that there were 28 vacancies. Even after making the appointments of 19 persons in 1971, still nine vacancies were available. Thus the claim of the appellants that they were appointed against vacancies reserved for War Service candidates, remained uncontroverted. We are also in agreement with the appellants that the only consideration for the admissibility of the War Service benefit was the nature of the vacancy. The view of the Department that the presumptive dates of appointment of the appellants happened to fall after 1-1-1946 and therefore, they were not entitled to the A benefit of War Service, was warranted neither by the rules nor by the instructions issued by the Services, General Administration & Information Department. The following observations as it appeared at page 111 In re : Muhammad Ajaib v. Government of Punjab (1973 PLC (C. S. T.) 95), decided on 14-9-1972, by the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal, also support the conclusions above:- ". . . The further effect of sections 2 and 3 of the Ordinance, was that the concession in the matter of seniority could be secured only to persons, who were appointed to war reserved vacancies, while the seniority of persons who were appointed to a non-reserved vacancy shall be determined in accordance with the Service Rules and in both cases the consideration whether the appointment was made before the Ist day of January, 1946, or thereafter was of no consequence."
10. In our view, the Department was clearly in error to reject the claim of the appellants on that basis. We accordingly accept this appeal and direct that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of War Service in accordance with the rules. However, there will be no order as to costs.