Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi has filed the present appeal challenging the vires of amended Rule 6 of Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993. The original rule is as under: "6. Inter se seniority of civil servants appointed in the same calendar year.--Persons appointed by transfer in a particular calendar year shall, as a class, be senior to those appointed by promotion or by initial appointment to such posts in that year, and persons promoted to higher posts in a particular calendar year shall, as a class, be senior to those appointed by Initial appointment to such posts in that year."
This rule has been amended by the Prime Minister of Pakistan in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Section 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 read with SRO No. 120(1)/98 dated 02.02.1998. The amended rule is reproduced verbatim:-- "6. Inter se seniority of civil servants appointed in the same calendar year.--Civil Servants appointed by promotion, by transfer, or by initial appointment to a service, cadre, or post shall take seniority from the date of their regular appointment to that service, cadre or post: Provided that the provisions of the rule shall not in any manner effect or impair the rights of the existing incumbents."
Under the original rule a promotee was to rank senior to a fresh appointee or to a person appointed by transfer in the same calendar year. However, under the amended rule a person appointed earlier in the same calendar year shall rank senior. The proviso to the amended rule says that it shall not affect or impair the rights of the existing incumbents meaning thereby that amended rule has not been given retrospective effect. The amended rule shall operate from the date of its enforcement. It shall not apply to the persons already in service. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that proviso to the amended Rule-6 is violative of Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
2. For the sake of convenience Section 8 of the Civil Servants -Act, 1973 is reproduced:-- "8. Seniority.--(1) For proper administration of service, cadre or post the appellate authority shall cause a seniority list of the members for the time being of such service, cadre or post to be prepared, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to confer any vested right to a particular seniority in such service, cadre or post, as the case may be.
(2)Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the seniority of a civil servant shall be reckoned in relation to other civil servants belonging to the same service or cadre whether serving in the same department or office or not, as may be prescribed.
(3)Seniority on initial appointment to a service, cadre or post shall be determined as may be prescribed.
(4)Seniority in a post, service or cadre 'to which a civil servant is promoted shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to that post: Provided the civil servants who are selected from promotion to a higher post in one batch shall, on their promotion to the higher post, retain their inter se seniority as in the lower post."
It shall be seen from a plain reading of this section that the rule in question is not in conflict with it.
Sub-section (2) is clear that seniority of a civil servant shall be reckoned in relation to other civil servants belonging to the same service or cadre as may be prescribed. It means that for determination of seniority under this sub-section rules can be prescribed. The rule prescribed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan it is strictly in accordance with this provision of law. Similarly, sub- section (3) states that seniority on initial appointment to a service, cadre or post shall be determined as may be prescribed. The words as may be prescribed" permit framing of rules. The Prime Minister of Pakistan has prescribed the rule in question for determination of seniority under this provision of law. Thus the amendment made in Rule 6 by the Prime Minister, including the proviso, is totally consistent with Section 8. Hence this rule cannot be declared to be ultra-vires of the 1973 Act.
3. The second prayer made by the appellant is for maintenance of separate seniority list for OMG Officers and Officers inducted by promotion. We are afraid the request cannot be granted. The rules provide for promotion to the posts of Section Officers. The promotions are made according to the prescribed quota. The inter se seniority of the promotees and the direct appointees is determined under Rule 6 ibid. Thus there is no cause of grievance for the appellants.
4. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Parties shall be informed accordingly.