' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---This Appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No,824(K) of 1999 filed by the appellant whereby same was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was inducted in the Foreign Service Group in BS-19 on 17-8-1992 on having qualified the Central Superior Service Examination in the year 1991. After completion of training at the Civil Services Academy he was posted in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1993. He then filed an application for change of his service group from Foreign Service to District Management Group (DMG) which was initially regretted by the Government but thereafter vide Order dated 8-3-1995 the Prime Minister of Pakistan acceded to this request and the appellant was allocated the DMG group against Sindh (Rural) Quota with the 1994 batch.
Consequently the appellant joined the. Specialized Training of this Group and having completed the same he requested the Secretary Establishment to fix his seniority along with his batch-mates appointed in the year 1992 which was turned down and hence the appellant approached the Service Tribunal which as noted above also did not accede to his request by dismissing his Appeal.
3. Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the appellant has firstly submitted that the Government has the power to grant ante dated seniority as per section 23 of the Civil Servants Act. Secondly per learned Advocate Supreme Court the appellant has been unfairly discriminated against as other officers who were similarly placed were granted seniority with their original batch-mates upon the change of their group viz. Mr. Sadiq Kamal Orakzai who went from the Foreign Service to the Police Service, Mr. Aftab Ahmed Cheema who was originally inducted in the Commerce and Trade Group in 1988 again joined the Police Service, Mr. Ali Mumtaz Zaidi, originally an officer of the Information Group who was later allotted DMG Group and Mr. Ahmed Mujtaba Memon who was originally inducted in the Foreign Service but was subsequently allocated Customs and Excise Group in 1988. Next learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that Rule 7(4) of the Occupational Groups and Service (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990 would not stand in the way of the appellant as these only relate to inter se seniority between the same batch whereas the Appellant is claiming seniority along with his original batch-mates of the 1992 common. Finally learned Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that the impugned judgment itself has recognized the issue of unfair discrimination as per the cases of the officers mentioned hereinabove where the Government has relaxed the Rules and upon change of their cadre given them seniority along with their batch-mates. However the learned Service Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction in the matter by observing that this dispensation could only be given to the appellant by the Government.
4. Mr. Ashiq Raza, learned D.A.-G. On the other hand has fully supported the impugned judgment on the ground that per the Rules antedated seniority could not be given to the appellant.
5. Respondent No,12 Dr. Riaz A. Memon who appeared in person, has submitted that per section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act seniority is to be counted from the date of regular appointment which in the case of the appellant is from the year 1995 and not from the year 1992. According to him section 23 of the said Act is inapplicable as it is of a general nature which gives the power to the President of Pakistan to deal with the case of any civil servant in such manner as may appear to him as just and equitable. Per Dr. Memon where the Act itself provides for ascertaining seniority i,e, section 8(4) then section 23 will not apply. Finally he has contended that the cases of the civil servants cited by the learned Advocate Supreme Court were inapplicable to the facts of the present case as those civil servants were allowed various groups as per the orders of the Tribunal or Superior Courts. On the, other hand in case the appellant was given ante-dated seniority at least 41 respondents would be affected.
6. We have heard learned Advocate Supreme Court, learned D.A.-G. As well as respondent No,12 and perused the record very carefully.
7. It would be seen that insofar as seniority is concerned section 8(2) of the Civil Servants Act provides that the seniority of a civil servant shall be reckoned in relation to other civil servants belonging to the same service or cadre whether in the same department or office or not as may be prescribed. Further per subsection 8(3) seniority on initial appointment to a service, cadre or post shall be determined as may be prescribed. In this connection as per section 7(4) of the Occupational Groups and Service (Productive Training and Seniority) Rules 1990 (1990 Rules) a mechanism has been given for determining the inter se seniority of the probationers who pass out from the Civil Services Academy. Finally the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules 1993 per section 2 thereof provide for seniority on initial appointment. None of the afore mentioned laws/rules have any provision which would cater for ante-dated seniority. Consequently the seniority inter se of civil servants regarding their batch-mates would depend upon the results of their performance in the Civil Services Academy. In this regard it is also instructive to note that the appellant's induction in the DMG was allowed vide Establishment. Division Letter No,12/1/95-EV(DMG) dated 22-8-1995 which specified the terms and conditions of his appointment in the said group. Besides other conditions, paras 2(v), (vii) and (x) of the said letter specifies as to how his seniority would be governed. These sub-paras inter alia stipulate as under:--
(v) If you are already in BPS-17 on the basis of a previous Competitive Examination you will not be allowed to seek reversion to your former Group during the training or after you join the new group.
Service in the previous group will not be counted for the purpose of seniority.
(vii) Your seniority in the Group will be determined by the Government after passing out the examination in accordance with rule 7 of the Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990.
' As a probationer you will be subject to the provisions of the Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990 as well as the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and shall be governed by rules and regulations applicable to a Civil Servant."
' Hence in view of the above terms and conditions which the appellant has accepted he cannot now be heard to say that despite the same he should be given ante-dated seniority i,e, along with his batch- mates of 1992.
7. Insofar as Mr. Aqil Awan's contention that previously other civil servants who were similarly placed were given such dispensation i,e, upon change of cadre, suffice it to say that those cases related to a period of time before the 1990 and 1993 rules came into existence and consequently the appellant cannot take the benefit of the same. Even D otherwise we would hardly subscribe to the view that if others had been shown favors which were not warranted by the law, the appellant also deserves the same. In our view grant of ante-dated seniority would upset the entire service structure of the 1995 DMG group which in the circumstances of case is not-at all justifiable.
9. For all the foregoing reasons, this Appeal is dismissed.