M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).------In this case the appellant being Munshi Fazil was appointed as untrained Teacher on 15-6-1948 against the post of J. V. Teacher in Primary School, Halloke, District Lahore, on a fixed salary of Rs. 40 p.m. The pay of the untrained teaching staff was revised, according to the Pay Revision Rules introduced on 1-4-1952 which raised the salary of untrained teachers from Rs. 40 p.m. To Rs. 60 p.m. The appellant was, however, allowed on 27-10- 1955 a regular scale of Rs. 60-4-100/105-7-140 meant for the Oriental Teachers. The appellant at the relevant time was holding appointment in Middle School, Shahpur. He represented for the grant of the regular scale w.e.f. 15-6-1948 i.e. The date of his original appointment instead of 27-10-1955.
The appellant had, however, foregone his claim of arrears of pay for the intervening period i.e. Prior to 27-10-1955, but claimed the fixation of his pay as Oriental Teacher w.e.f. 15-6-1948 in the regular scale. His case appears to have been recommended by the District Inspector of Schools, Lahore, to the Chairman, District Council; Lahore. It further appears that the recom--mendations were accepted somewhere on 26-5-1970. (See Annexure `A' of the grounds of appeal). But on 1-6-1970 the School was nationalised along with the appellant vide The West Pakistan Local Councils High Schools (Taking Over) Ordinance, 1970. Section 5(b) of the aforesaid Ordinance provided as under :- ---5.
(a)
(b) all teachers including the heads of schools and other staff employed by a Local Council in connection with the high schools shall stand transferred for service to, and be employed by Government on the same terms and conditions as are applicable from time to time to teachers and staff of corresponding categories in Government service ;"
(c)
2. Thus it appears that the decision of the Chairman, District Council, Lahore, could not be implemented as the appellant became a Civil Servant. His case was again forwarded to the Inspector of Schools, Lahore Division, who on 4-11-1971 turned down the recommendations with the observation that the appellant could not claim seniority in the Oriental Teacher Grade for the period earlier than when he was appointed as such. He directed that the Seniority List be corrected accordingly. In consequence of the above, the position of the appellant in the Seniority was down graded from Sr. No. 11 to Sr. No. 52. This order was passed on 4-11-1971. Further representation by the appellant to the Inspector of Schools, Lahore Division, was also rejected on 26-10-1972. It appears that the appellant filed a Civil Suit to challenge the aforesaid notification in April, 1975 which was dismissed on 12-3-1976 by the civil Court for want of jurisdiction. The present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 27-3-1976 to impugned the orders dated 4-11-1971 and 26-10-1972.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal raised the following contentions :-
(i) That the plea of the appellant for the grant of regular seale w.e.f. 15-6-1948 had been allowed to hiss. By the Chairman, District Council, vide his order dated 26-5-1970, which order under the Basic Democracies Order was final unless set aside by the Controlling Authority i.e. The Commissioner, Lahore Division, in this case. Thus the Inspector of Schools had no powers to set aside the same on 4-11-1971 ; and
(ii) That the order granting seniority to the appellant by virtue of the order dated 26-5-1970 was duly acted upon inasmuch as his seniority had been properly fixed at Sr. No. 11 and thus the Inspector of Schools had no locus poenitentia to withdraw the same.
4. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand contended that the impugned orders were passed in October, 1972 and the Civil Suit instituted in 1974 abated by operation of law on the establishment of this Tribunal on 22-7-1974. According to the learned Government Pleader no formal order was necessary for abatement of the proceedings before the civil Court and thus the appellant was required to approach this Tribunal within six months of the establishment of this Tribunal i.e. By 21-7-1975 at the latest. Since the appeal has been filed in March, 1976, the same is, therefore, grossly barred by time. Reliance in this behalf is placed on the decision of Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Masood Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1976 SC 195). The learned Government Pleader further contended that there was nothing in section 5 of the Ordinance XV of 1970 to support the contention of the appellant that he was entitled to any protection. He submitted that a plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly shows that the contention raised by the appellant was wholly misconceived. He also submitted that the order has not been acted upon and thus the Inspector of Schools was within his powers to review the same. He submitted that after 1-6-1970, the appellant became subject to the Rules regulating the terms and conditions of Civil Servants. Since no rule has been shown to entitle the appellant to reckon his service or seniority in the grade of Oriental Teacher prior to the date of his actual and physical appointment in the grade, the appellant had no right or title to claim the O. T. Grade, or seniority into the same w.e.f. 15-6-1948.
5. After hearing both the parties, we find that the objection of the Government Pleader as to the limitation is well founded. The law is well settled that the abatement takes place without any formal order by the Court. In this case, the abatement occurred by operation of law as provide by the Constitution of Pakistan Article 212(2) as amended in May, 1974 and also by section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The appellant has not shown to us that there was any bona fide doubt as to the abatement of the proceedings. We are, therefore, inclined to hold the tea the appeal is barred by time and the plea of the appellant contained in the application for the condonation of delay that he was following the remedy before the civil Court fails to make out any case that he acted with due diligence. In any case, even on merits, we do not find any substance in the contention raised by the appellant. There is nothing in section 5 to lend any support to the contention of the appellant that his existing terms and conditions were protected although section 5(b) only provided that the Teacher employed in the Local Councils' Schools, under the Nationalization Ordinance, were entitled to the same terms and conditions as were applicable to the Teachers and staff of the corresponding categories in the Government service. The appellant has failed to show that after the nationalization he had been denied the same terms and conditions which were availed by the Teachers of the corresponding categories of Government servants.
6. As regards the order passed by the Chairman, District Council, the appellant has failed to show that the same was acted upon inasmuch as no order was produced before us to show that his salary was fixed w.e.f. 15-6-1948 in the regular scale admissible to the O. T. Teachers. We, are therefore, not disposed to accept the plea of the appellant that the order has been varied to his disadvantage.
7. The appeal has thus no force and is dismissed both on the point of limitation as well as on merits.