Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Respondent No, 2 Muhammad Tahir joined CTP on 20.08.1998 in the postal group. Thereafter he competed again and was allocated customs group. The appellant Muhammad Anwar had also appeared in the CSS and was allowed customs service along with Respondent No,
2. He was placed senior to Respondent No, 2 in the cadre of Assistant Collectors (BS-17). Both of them were promoted as Deputy Collectors on acting charge basis vide notification dated 12.03.2004. In the seniority list of Deputy Collectors the appellant was placed at Serial No, 1 whereas Respondent No, 2 was placed at Serial No,
3. Thereafter they were promoted on regular basis. A provisional seniority list of Deputy Collectors was circulated on 29.03.2010. Objections were invited on this list up to 13.04.2010. A final seniority list was published in which the appellant was placed at Serial No, 50 and the Respondent No, 2 at Serial No,
53. It appears that the Respondent No, 2 made, a representation that he should have been promoted on regular basis w,e,f, 12.03.2004 and not on acting charge basis since he had completed the required five years of length of service.
His representation was allowed. In this manner he was made senior to the appellant. Aggrieved by the seniority position of Respondent No, 2 the appellant filed departmental appeal on 10.06.2011 which was not responded. Hence this appeal.
2. It is maintained by the respondents that Respondent No, 2 had served the postal department for one year and four days, therefore, he had completed required five year service as a consequence of which he had been regularized in BS-18, prior to the appellant, w,e,f, 12.03.2004 when he had been promoted on acting charge basis. It is stated that since the Respondent No, 2 had been granted BS-18 earlier than the appellant he had to be placed senior to him. On the other hand, the contention of the appellant is that Respondent No, 2 could not be placed senior to him in violation of Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. It appears to us that the service of Respondent No, 2 in postal department had been taken into consideration in granting him BS-18 in the customs service. In our view this was not the correct procedure adopted by the Federal Board of Revenue in promoting the Respondent No, 2 in Grade- 18 on regular basis, making him senior to the appellant. Respondent No, 2 was junior to the appellant in the list of Assistant Collectors. On promotion he had to rank junior to him under Rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993 which clearly states that on promotion the civil servants shall retain their inter se seniority as it was in the lower cadre. It appears to us that a device had been adopted by the Federal Board of Revenue in making the Respondent No, 2 senior to the appellant by taking into consideration his service in the postal group. The postal group and the customs group are two different entities. Service in postal group could not be taken into consideration for granting regular promotion for in the customs group. Both the appellant and the Respondent No, 2 belong to the customs service. Their service in that group only could be taken into consideration for determining their seniority. Admittedly in that group the appellant was senior to the Respondent No,
2. Thus he could not be made junior to Respondent No, 2.
5. The respondents have maintained that seniority had been given to Respondent No, 2 in the light of Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990. No specific B rule has been shown by which service in a different occupational group could be counted for purposes of seniority in another occupational group. Service in one occupational group can be counted for purposes of fixation of pay and pension but not for seniority in other occupational group.
6. We, therefore, hold that the Respondent No, 2 was unlawfully made senior to the appellant. He has to remain junior to the appellant in the seniority list of Grade-18 officers. As such his promotion w,e,f, 12.03.2004 could not be treated as regular to the detriment of the appellant. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellant shall remain senior to Respondent No, 2 in the customs group.
7. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.