' All the appellants filed the instant appeal jointly against the impugned order dated 24.4.2013 passed by the Secretary Local Government and CD department, whereby the said Secretary, in the capacity of appellate authority, rejected the departmental joint appeal preferred to him against order dated 28.5.2012 passed by the DCO Lahore/Administrator, the Respondent No. 4 whereby the said DCO, Lahore found all appellants not entitled to be considered for award of selection grade in the light of findings of the inquiry officer and observations of the Accountant General office. The DCO, Lahore by way of impugned order dated 28.5.2012 rejected the petitions of the appellants for grant of selection grade w.e.f. The date claimed or any other appropriate date being without substance and merits.
2. The appellants for the best reasons known to them also called in question the aforesaid impugned orders by way of their separate service appeals Bearing Nos. 131 to 182 of 2015. Since common questions of law and facts and the same impugned orders are involved in all the separate appeals, therefore, the separate appeals of the appellants are consolidated with the appeal in hand filed jointly for the purpose of decision. All the appeals are being disposed of by this single order.
3. Laconically, the facts stated are that the appellants are retired teachers to whom the learned counsel sternly stated to be the civil servants. They, on the basis of an order/letter issued by the Govt of the Punjab/Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department had claimed for the grant of selection grade. Their representations were declined by the DCO, Lahore/Administrator, City Government, Lahore/Respondent No.4 The same was called in question before the Respondent No. 3/ Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department who vide impugned order dated 24.4.2013 dismissed the departmental appeals/representation for the reasons being barred by time for 9 months and 24 days. The record speaks that the appellants ran from pillar to post in order to seek relief. They had also been filing writ petitions before honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore in this regard. The detail of which is deemed not necessary to be given at this stage.
4. It is the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants that Respondent No. 4/DCO, Lahore after rejection of the representation of the appellants has not communicated the impugned order to the appellants .It was vehemently argued that as and when it came to knowledge of the appellants, they filed departmental appeals before the Respondent No. 3 Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department. Learned counsel for the appellants has been pouring scorn while saying that the Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department/Respondent No. 3 has fallen in error while dismissing the departmental appeals on the pretext of limitation i.e. Being time barred by 9 months and 24 days).
5. At this stage learned D.A upon call appeared before this Tribunal. He was asked to peruse the record available on file and adduce his arguments on the point of limitation. He after perusal of the record submitted that the appellants were vigilant and were heartedly pursing their case in the department. Therefore, the question of communication of the impugned order dated 28.5.2012 does not arise. He sternly supported all the impugned orders.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. The impugned order dated 28.5.2012 passed by the Respondent No. 4/DCO, Lahore whereby he rejected the representations of the appellants regarding grant of selection grade from a certain date. It would be seen from the said impugned order that copy of this order was not endorsed to the appellants or directed to be communicated to them. In view of this, the stance of the appellants is true that as and when they learnt about the impugned order passed by the DCO, Lahore they preferred departmental appeal. I found that the appellate authority i.e. Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department has not taken into consideration the above said facts and circumstances and passed the sketchy impugned order brusquely. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Abdul Jabbar's case (see 1991 SCM R 2335) observed as under:-- "In this case it cannot be said that no reason is mentioned in the rejection of respondent's representations in the orders dated 6/9.10.1988. But in many other cases we have been seen that the rejection is a simple ritualistic rejection. Even if it is not a mandate by any law that the officer concerned should be informed about the reasons which prevailed with the authority concerned it would not be illegal either to give reasons; at least, from now onward. It being the judgment of this Court on this legal question, the same would be observed as declared law. (the underline is mine)
' In the light of the foregoing discussion we accept these appeals and remand the cases to the departmental concerned for consideration of the representations submitted from the respondent's side on merits and to decide the same by reasoned orders. And with the further directions that the reasons should also be conveyed to the respondents. The respondents shall be at liberty to amend their representations and include additional grounds either of facts as alleged in two Civil petitions dealt herein or of law."
Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 requires a reasoned order. In quasi judicial and administrative order the reasons for making such orders are necessary. The Order passed in departmental appeals is equally covered by Section 24-A of the Act ibid, the reasons by the appellate authority are sine qua non for appellate order. The appellate authority i.e. Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department, while passing the impugned order dated 24.4.2013, has failed to assign reasons while taking into account as to whether the impugned order in departmental appeals was communicated or not. As I observed above the same was not ordered to be communicated, therefore, the rejection of their departmental appeals on the basis of limitation (i.e being time barred by 9 months and 24 days) resulted in miscarriage of justice.
8. For the foregoing reasons all the appeals in hand are accepted. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 24.4.2013 is set aside with the direction that the departmental appeal/representation of the appellants shall be deemed to be pending before the Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department/Respondent No. 3 who is directed to decide such appeal through a speaking and well-reasoned order within a period of two months positively, from the date of receipt of this order, while affording proper opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. The office is directed to send a copy of this judgment forthwith to the Respondent No. 3/ Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department for compliance. The office is also directed to place on record a copy of this order in all connected appeals for record.