Mozzam Hayat, Member.--With this judgment we shall decide the above titled appeals as their facts are identical and all the appellants claim seniority against private respondents.
2. The appellants and the private respondent, were appointed in Faisalabad Zone of Income Tax as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs). They were reappointed as Upper. Division Clerks (UDCs). Meanwhile"
Sargodha Zone was created in 1994/1995. The private Respondents 3 & 4 opted for Sargodha Zone.
Separate seniority lists were prepared for Faisalabad Zone and Sargodha Zone. On the basis of seniority list of Sargodha Zone private Respondents No, 3 & 4 were promoted as Supervisors on 31.8.1994 and 13.11.1994 respectively. It is stated that Federal Board of Revenue was reorganized.
Faisalabad Zone was created in 2007. It comprised of Faisalabad Company Zone, Faisalabad and Sargodha Zones. The appellants were also promoted. It is claimed by them that, since they were senior in the original seniority list, they had to rank senior to private respondents in the newly created Zone.
3. The appeals are resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the private respondents were promoted earlier as Supervisors in Sargodha Zone, therefore, they had to be placed senior to the appellants who were promoted subsequently.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. In the seniority lists dated 02.12.1989, 20.07.1992 the appellants were definitely shown senior to the private respondents. However, when the respondents joined Sargodha Zone on their option, on its creation, their seniority was determined on the basis of seniority list prepared for that Zone. It was on the strength of that list that they were promoted as Supervisors on 31.08.1994 and 13.11.1994.
When Sargodha Zone was merged in Faisalabad Zone the private respondents also joined it as Supervisors. Under the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, seniority is to be governed form the date of promotion to a cadre. It was good fortune of the private Respondents No, 3 &. 4 that they, had gone to Sargoddha Zone where they were promoted earlier than the appellants. The appellants had remained in Faisalabad Zone and were promoted as Supervisors, after Respondents No, 3 & 4 were promoted to that cadre. The promotion of private Respondents No, 3 & 4 had never been challenged It had thus attained finality in 1994. Being Supervisors in higher grade they had to be placed senior to the appellants on merger of the Zones. As observed above, it was a good fortune of private Respondents No, 3&4 that they had been promoted as Supervisors in Sargodha Zone. The appellants were unfortunate that they had remained in their original zone and were promoted subsequently despite the fact that in the original seniority list they were senior. As seniority has to be regulated under the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, the Respondents No, 3 & 4, having been promoted to the higher grade earlier, have to be placed senior to the appellants who were promoted to that cadre at a later date.
6. The appellants have placed reliance on a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 29.01.2011. This judgment is of no help to them. That judgment was with respect to Data Entry Operators. The question of creation of Zones was not in issue in that appeal. Some persons had been promoted who were junior. Since the appellants of the said appeals were not promoted for no fault on their part, a direction was issued by the FST that the seniors, who had not been promoted, be promoted and thereafter inter se seniority be re-decided. The question involved in the present case is totally different. Herein it is creation of Zones which has given benefit to the Respondents No, 3 & 4 and has put the appellants to disadvantage.
7. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeals which are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
8. Parties shall be informed accordingly.