1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN)-This is an appeal, by Mr. Abdul Hakim under section 4 of the West Pakistan civil Services (Appellant Tribunals) Ordinance, 1969, instituted on the 13th July P, 17, fey which fee; prays that he may be given seniority as Senior Clerk from 10-5-1958 over Mr. Mohammad Saghir. Khan and Farooq Hussain Khan, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and may further tie allowed all consequential benefits in respect of confirmation, date, promotion, etc., in accordance with his seniority.
2. The appellant and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 all joined the office of the Superintendent, Government Printing Press its Junior Clerks. The appellant joined the office of the Superintendent, Government Printing Press as a temporary junior Clerk on 28-12-53. Mr. Mohammad Saghir Khan, respondent No. 3 and Mr. Farooq Hussain Khan, respondent No. 4 joined as temporary Junior Clerks on 1-6-1948 and 14 1 1-19.17, respec--tively. Both the respondents having joined as Junior Clerks earlier than the appellant were senior to the appellant as Junior Clerk in that office. Mr. Mohammad Saghir Khan, respondent No. 3 was confirmed as Junior Clerk on 21-4-1951 and promoted as Senior Clerk on 7-2-1955 in the office of the Superintendent, Government Printing Press. Mr. Farooq Hussain Khan, respondent No. 4, was promoted as Senior Clerk on 5-9-1949, and confirmed as Junior Clerk on 20-4-1950. The appellant was not promoted as Senior Clerk until 10-5-1958 in the office of the Controller of Printing arid Stationery, which was set up as a new office on 1-11-1957. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 having longer continuous officiation and having been confirmed earlier, ranked senior to the appellant as Senior Clerk. When the office of the Controller of Printing and Stationery was set up on 1-11-1957, Mr. Mohammad Saghir Khan was appointed as Senior Clerk and the appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk in that office. Both these appointments have been treated as direct appointments to the office of the Controller of Printing and Stationery, and it appears that under a policy decision their service in this office for purposes of seniority is to count from I-11-1957. This decision was arrived at with the circumstances of the Services and General Administration Department in 1965, vide Annexure `O', dated 30-6-1965. The appellant was confirmed as Senior Jerk in the office of the Controller, Printing and Stationery from 1-8-1961 and was promoted as Assistant from 31-7-1967. r. Muhammad Saghir Khan, respondent No. 3 was confirmed s Senior Clerk on 25-7-1961, i e. earlier than the appellant and was promoted as Assistant on 13-5-1958 in the office of he Controller, Printing and Stationery, but on 16-6-1958, he was reverted as Senior Clerk and transferred to the office of the Superintendent, Government Printing Press for his refusal to do work allotted to him, for administrative reasons, and as requested by him. The order of transfer reads as follows:- "Consequent upon the refusal of Mr. Mohammad Saghir Khan to carry oft the work allotted to him and his request for reversion as well as for administrative reasons, Mr. Mohammad Saghir Khan is reverted as Senior Clerk and transferred to the Secretariat Press.
3. On 13-9-1958, i.e., within three months of the transfer to the office of the Superintendent, Government Printing Pre as, respondent No. 3 was re-transferred to the office of the Control, Printing and Stationery as Senior Clerk and was promoted as, assistant from 13-2-1964.
4. By Office order dated 19-2-1964, the appellant and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were confirmed as Senior Clerks in the office of the Controller, Printing and Stationery from 1-8-1961, 25-7-1961 and 18- 7-1961, respectively. Therefore, the appellant was confirmed subsequent to respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
5. In the seniority list published on 19-2-1964, Mr. Farooq Hussain Khan, respondent No. 4 was shown as Assistant, while respondent No. 3 and the appellant were shown as Senior Clerks. Respondent No. 3 was placed senior to the appellant as Senior Clerk. The appellant has challenged this seniority list, bat the latest seniority list is the one which was circulated -is on 1-10-1969. In this list, the appellant and both the respondents are shown in the column of Assistants. Respondent No. 4 figures at serial No. 10, respondent No. 3 at serial No. 13 and the appellant at serial No. 14. Their dates of appointment of the present post are respectively shown as 1-3-1962, 13-2-1961 and 13-7-1967.
6. The seniority which the appellant seeks to establish by this was appeal is fin the rank of Senior Clerk. He claims seniority ewer Mr. Mohammad Saghir Khan, respondent No. 3 on the, ground that when he was transferred from the office of the Controller, Printing and Stationery on 16-6-1958, he being temporary, his lien did not remain in that office in view of the 9 1es 3.13 arid 3.14 of the C. S. R.
7. (Pb.), Vol. I, Part I, and he therefore, entitled to count his seniority as Senior Clerk from 13-9-1958 when he was re-transferred to the office of the controller, Printing and Stationery as Senior Clerk.
8. Rules 3.13 and 14 are relied upon for the reason that his lien was retained, the office of the Supdt.
9. Government Printing Press. It has been admitted that his lien was retained in that Office and was terminated when he was confirmed as Senior Clerk in the Office of the Controller, Printing and Stationery, from 25-7-1961. The argument is based on the contention that the cadres of the two offices namely, the Superintendent, Government Printing Press and the Controller of Printing and Stationery, were in two different offices with separate ministerial cadres and the seniority-in the office of the Controller, Printing and Stationery is to be counted from the date of joining that office, That office was set up after the establishment of West Pakistan on 1-1-1957, as Head Office and the Office of the Superintendent, Government Printing Press is being treated as a Regional Office.
10. The West Pakistan Printing and Stationery Department 4 Ministerial Service (Head Office) Rules, 1962 came into force on 27-12-1962, while the West Pakistan Printing and Stationery department Ministerial Service (Lahore Presses) Rules, 1963 came into force on 9-7-1963. These rules now govern the Head Office and the Regional Offices. The rule of seniority is rule 9 of the said rules in either case and the basis of seniority is continuous appointment in the case of those not initially recruited. These rules also make the members of either service liable to transfer any where in West Pakistan and to serve any Department of Govern. mentor any local authority or statutory body.
11. Prior to the coming into force of these rules, the rule of seniority as provided in tine Integration Circular is the date of continuous appointment, substantive or otherwise. In fixing the inter se seniority of the appellant and the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, the guiding consideration for the Controller has been that Mr. Mohammad Saghir Khan, respondent No. 3 was recruited as Senior Clerk on 1-11-1957, while the appellant was taken as Junior Clerk and thus Mr. Saghir Khan was senior and his transfer for less than three months to the regional office should not deprive him of his seniority over the appellant: It is emphasized on behalf of the appellant that the two offices being separate and distinct, Mr. Saghir is not entitled to count his previous service and his date of continuous appointment can only be treated as being 13-9-1958. From the report and the written statement filed on behalf of the Controller, Printing and Stationery, it appears that there is no hard and fast demarcation line between the two offices and persons belonging to the clerical cadre were trans--ferable from one office to another. When in June 1958, Mr. Saghir was revertedtothe office of the Superintendent, Govern--ment Printing Press for administrative reasons as well, it can be treated as a transfer in the public interest. In any case, when he was re-transferred to the office of the Controller, Printing and Stationery on 13-9-1958, the transfer was made in the public interest and when he was confirmed as Senior Clerk from 25-7-1961, his Lien was secured there. He could not lose the benefit of his previous service by reason of his transfer from the office of the. Controller and retransfer to that office. Indeed there is nothing to indicate that there has been any break in his- service, as has been contended on behalf of the appellant. Since Mr. Saghir Khan, respondent No. 3 was basically senior he has not been superseded by the appellant, so that in terms of rule 9 of the rules, he shoud be deemed to have been superseded by the appellant. By operation of rule; the seniority is not reversed. Therefore, Mr. Saghir Khan, respondent No. 3 continued to enjoy his seniority over the appellant.
12. The appellant claims seniority over Mr. Farooq Hussain Khan, respondent No.4 on the ground that he was appointed as officiating Senior Clerk in the office of the Controller, Printing and Stationery on 13-5-1958, while the appellant was promoted as Senior Clerk in that office on 10-5-1958 and, therefore, his date of continuous appointment is earlier. It is also emphasized in this connection that appointment in the office of the Controller, 3'rinting and Stationery of respondent No. 4 is to be deemed to lie a fresh appointment. As already observed, there is no hard and fast demarcation line between the two offices and we are not inclined to deprive the members of the ministerial staff the benefit of previous service for manning the staff of the Controller, Printing and Stationery set up from 1-11-1957 in the public interest. The officers transferred to and appointed in the office of the Controller must have the benefit of their previous service. Basic seniority is not to be lost by the accident of appointment to another office. Basically Mr. Farooq Hussain was senior as Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk as he was appointed as Junior Clerk on 10-11-1947 and promoted a Officiating Senior Clerk on 5-9-1959. By the operation of the rules, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 do not lose their basic seniority over the appellant.
13. For the reasons stated above, we see no force in this appeal, which is dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.