' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Abdul Qaiyum Sheikh has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the order communicated on 27th September, 1980 wherein his request to be placed senior to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has been rejected.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned or der dated 4th September, 1980 of respondent No, 1 be set aside and he be placed above respondent No, 2 Mr. Anwar Masrur in seniority.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the former West Pakistan Forest Service Class-I on 1st November, 1958. He on the basis of his merits, was placed senior to respondents Nos.
2 and 3. Unfortunately he stood retired w. e. f. 13th March, 1972 under M. L. R.
114. He remained out of service for certain period and ultimately he was reinstated vide order dated l1th January 1978 i. e. After a period of six years. The appellant joined duty on 23rd January, 1978.
During the period he remained out of service, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, along with Messrs Ishtiaq Ahmed Qazi, M. A. Qadeer Khan and M. Ashraf Hafeez. Were promoted to the next higher grade of Conservator of Forests in Grade-19 w. e. f. Various dates L e. From 1975-1977. The Government, after the reinstatement, considered him for promotion in July, 1979 and promoted him in the next higher rank as Conservator of Forests in Grade-19 w. e. f. 21st July, 1979. The appellant made representation against these orders claiming that his period of service after his removal and before his reinstatement be counted towards his seniority and should be placed senior to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by Representative of the Department and have gone through the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance. The only point urged on his behalf by the learned counsel for the appellant is that when he was reinstated under M. L.
0. 23 he should have been automatically promoted on the Principle of "Next Below" Rule, for the reasons that his seniority could only be affected in case he was considered along with his juniors for promotion and was superseded. According to the learned counsel the absence of the appellant from service for a period of six years was an event beyond his control; therefore, he could not be allowed to suffer for this impediment in his way.
5. On the other hand, the learned D. A. Has defended the impugned order on the ground that re- instatement made under M. L.
0. 23 had its peculiar features and the case of the appellant was governed by the office memorandum issued by Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, and Establishment Division, dated 5th July, 1978. Therefore, the impugned order was fully justified, in view of the said office memorandum.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both the parties and found that impugned order was based on the advice of the Regulation Wing of S G A & I Department which we reproduce below :- "Re-instatement of compulsorily retired persons under M. L.
0. 23 cannot be treated as re-instatement under normal Service Law and can carry consequential benefits allowed by the special law alone. Normal law or rules cannot be invoked for consequential benefits of such re-instatement."
7. While going through the letter dated 5th July, 1958 from the Establishment Division we also find the view of the Government in para. E of said letter which runs as under :-- "The persons re-instated in service may be considered for promotion on the basis of their seniority in the grade held by them in accordance with the normal rules. On promotion to higher grade, they may be allowed pay and seniority from the date of their regular appointment to the posts in the higher grade. There will be no automatic promotion on the principle of 'Next Below' rule."
8. In view of this decision of the Establishment Division and advice of the SG A&I Department respectively the impugned order has been passed. We have carefully gone through these two documents and are of the considered opinion that the principles enunciated by the SG A & I Department and the Establishment Division are sound as well as in accordance with equity. In the case of persons who were once removed from service under a special legislation, particularly supra-legislation like Martial Law, it would not be fair to equate their cases with the ordinary service rules. Therefore, the said persons would only be entitled to con sequential benefits if allowed by that law.
9. In view of the above we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned orders challenged by the appellant in this case are unexceptionable and we maintain the same. The result is, we dismiss the present appeal as being without any merits; However, there will be no order as to costs.