Moazzam Hayat, Member.--With this judgment we shall decide the above titled appeals as the prayer made in all the appeals is the same. It is for their regularization and absorption in- the grades in which they had been working.
2. In the rightsizing/restructuring the appellants were declared surplus. They were adjusted against lower posts, of Guards (Grade-I). vide order dated 07.09.2000. However, their pay was protected.
They submitted departmental appeals on 16.11.2009 with a request for absorption as Guard Grade- II in BS-11/12. Their request was refused on 08.12.2009. Hence these appeals.
3. Twenty seven, staff members of the respondents were found surplus. They were asked to give their options for their absorption as Guard Grade-I. The appellants submitted their options and were absorbed. It is their grievance that they should have been absorbed against the posts equivalent to the posts against which they had been working. It is maintained by them that Qazi Abdul Wadood and Muhammad Ajmal were blue eyed officials of the department and were absorbed in Grade-8 whereas they were absorbed in Grade-7 only.
4. The appeals are resisted by the respondents. It is submitted that the case of the appellants is not at par with Qazi Abdul Wadood and Muhammad Ajmal since they had opted for absorption in Grade-8 whereas the appellants had opted for absorption in Grade-7. A legal objection is also taken that the appeals are hopelessly time barred and it is a past and closed chapter.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. the appellants were adjusted against lower posts of Guards Grade.I in BS-8 on 07.09.2000. The absorption was made on their request since they had been declared surplus. Their pay was, however, protected. Under law a surplus employee can be adjusted against any post having lesser grade with the only condition that his pay shall be protected. In this case the pay of the appellants was protected. They we re made surplus and were absorbed in lower grades on their request. The process had been completed in 2000. We fail to understand as to w hy they agitated the matter after a lapse of nine years when they filled departmental appeals. No indulgence can be shown to the appellants since they had slept over their rights, if there were any, for nine long years. It is clearly held in 2008 SCM R 663 that no indulgence can he shown to indolent and negligent employees. This law is fully applicable to the- facts of the present cases. The appellants had been absorbed as Guards in Grade-I on 07.09.2000. In the end of year 2009 they awoke from deep slumber and submitted departmental appeals. Meanwhile many promotions had been made.
Much water had flown under the bridge also. After nine years a past and closed chapter could not be r e-opened.
7. As mentioned above, the case of the appellants was not at par with. Qazi Abdul Wadood and Muhammad Ajmal since their requests for absorption was in BS-8. If the appellants were aggrieved by their absorption they should have entered into legal proceedings at the oppropriate time. At this stage they cannot be allowed to re-open the issue as it shall open a pandora box.
8. The appellants had submitted applications to Human Rights Cell of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. They are not sure as to the result of their applications. The filing of applications in Human Rights Cell did not have any adverse affect on the present appeals since they are purely judicial in nature. A civil servant can file an appeal in the Tribunal even if he had submitted an application to the Human Rights Cell. The appeal shall be barred only if the applications given to the Human Rights Cell are decided on judicial side.
9. The appellants cannot be allowed to agitate the matter at this stage especially when they had attended Walton Training School where they had received training for the posts of Guard Grade-I.
After having accepted their regularization as Guards (Grade-I) in BS-S they could not claim regularization in BS-11 or BS-12.
10.This contention of the appellants is not substantiated on record that in the meantime the respondents had taken two Guards in Grade-II on initial appointment. The respondents have controverted the assertion of the appellants. We see no reason to disbelieve the respondents in this regard. There was no vacancy in the promoted or original cadre of the appellants against which they could be adjusted.
11.In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeals which are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
12. Parties shall be informed accordingly.