' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---This appeal (C.A. 5-K/2014), by leave of the Court, has been filed by Muhammad Bachal Memon and 3 others. The appellants are engineers employed in the Works and Services Department of the Sindh Government. The principal contestant in this case is Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah respondent No. 1.
2. The dispute between the parties arises on account of contention as to seniority inter se. This contention has arisen because of the creation of the Works and Services Department by the Sindh Government. The appellants impugn the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal dated 28-10-2013 whereby an appeal filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed and as a consequence the Provincial Government was directed to prepare separate seniority lists in respect of civil servants noted in the impugned judgment. More importantly, however, in the impugned judgment it was held that "the preparation of a combined/joint seniority list of the Executive Engineers (BS-18) of the Works and Services Department as fit] stood on 1-3-2012 is not in accordance with law". The combined seniority list as a consequence was set aside and it was directed that promotions in the Works and Services Department will not be made on the basis of this combined list but on the basis of separate lists for those who were in the Education Department and the C&W Department.
3. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties and to ascertain if the impugned judgment requires interference, it is necessary to set out very briefly the facts which have given rise to the dispute between the contesting parties. The appellants as well as respondent No.1 are Engineers. Prior to the reconfiguration of the Departments of the Sindh Government, there were two Departments in which one or the other of the parties was serving. The first Department was called the Communication and Works Department (C&W Department) and the other was the Directorate in the Education Department known as the Directorate of Education Engineering Works. The appellants were employed in the said Directorate in the Education Department. It is not disputed that separate seniority lists were maintained ,in respect of Engineers in the C&W Department and the Education Department and even subsequent to the creation of the Works and Services Department separate seniority lists continued to be maintained.
4. At this stage it would be useful to set out some relevant facts relating to the employment and service record of the contesting parties before us. The respondent Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah was inducted in the C&W Department on 22-7-1985 in BS-17 and was promoted in BS-18 on 13-4-1995.
The first appellant herein namely, Muhammad Bachal Memon was inducted into service in the Education Department on 13-7-1986 in BS-17 and was promoted to BS-18 on 2-3-1992. The controversy between the parties is highlighted by these simple facts. It is clear that the respondent Tanveer Hussain Shah was inducted into government service in 1985 in BS-17 while the appellant Muhammad Bachal Memon was inducted into service in the same grade i.e. BS-17 in 1986.
Therefore, had the two been appointed in ordinary course in the same department they would have been included in the same cadre both being engineers and as a consequence, the seniority would have been determined on the basis of dates on which they were initially recruited in service.
The dispute as to seniority arose subsequent to the reconfiguration of government departments and the creation of a combined seniority list. It is as a result of such list that the appellant Muhammad Bachal Memon has now been ranked senior to the respondent Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah; this being a result of promotion of Mr. Memon into BS-18 in 1992 in the cadre created and maintained by the Education Department as opposed to the promotion of Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah in BS-18 in 1995 on the basis of the seniority list maintained by the C&W Department.
5. On 17-9-2002, a reorganization of the Departments of the Sindh Government was effected by assigning administrative responsibilities to the various departments in the Sindh Government. As a consequence the engineering works in the Education Department which were being undertaken by the Directorate of Education Engineering Works were transferred for government and administrative purposes to the Communication Department. Later in the same year on 1-11-2002, the government of Sindh created the aforesaid Works and Services Department. As a result engineers who were previously employed in the Education Department and in the C&W Department respectively, were brought under the administrative control of the Works and Services Department.
6. The contention between the parties has arisen, not on account of any reconfiguration/merger of administrative departments but has come about on account of the combined seniority list which has been prepared in respect of Executive Engineers (BS-18) of the Works and Services Department as on 1-3-2012. This list which is on file, purports to have been "prepared in pursuance of orders of Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.R.P. No.1-K of 2011 in C.A. No. 70-K/2010". According to the learned counsel for the appellants the combined seniority list as prepared by the Sindh Government is proper and rightly shows the appellants to be senior to the respondent Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah.
Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has argued that any reconfiguration of administrative departments by the Provincial Government is meant for administrative convenience and governance only. According to him, such reorganization cannot have any effect on the service structure and the rights including seniority of civil servants in the Province.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the impugned judgment and record with their able assistance. At this juncture, it is important to note that the appellants in this appeal are respondents in connected Civil Appeals Nos. 311 to 314 of 2013.
The respondent Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah is, along with others, appellant in Civil Appeal No.311 of 2013. In the connected appeals, a judgment of a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court dated 12-11- 2010, has been impugned. According to the Sindh High Court, the merger or reconfiguration of administrative departments, by itself led to a merger of the two cadres with effect from 1-11-2002. It has, therefore, been held by the Sindh High Court that "preparation of two separate seniority lists is without lawful authority and of no legal effect". It is in this backdrop that the dispute between the parties has to be resolved.
8. We thus have two conflicting judgments before us; the first by the Service Tribunal and the second by a learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court. Both judgments have been assailed before us. Therefore, the question as to which forum i.e. The High Court or the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the issue in contention is of academic interest only. In either event an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court whether under Article 212 or Article 185 of the Constitution. The point of law being the same in both cases, is to be adjudicated.
9. Our understanding of the issue in contention between the parties has to originate from first principles. There are two provisions of the Constitution which have relevance in this context. Article 139(3) of the Constitution stipulates that "the Provincial Government shall ... Make rules for the allocation and transaction of its business". Article 240 of the Constitution provides that "subject to the Constitution, the appointments to and the conditions of service of persons in the service ... Of a Province and posts in connection with the affairs of a Province" shall be determined by or under Act of the Provincial Assembly. Article 241 stipulates that until the appropriate legislature makes a law under Article 240, "all rules and orders in force immediately before the commencing day shall, so far as consistent with the provisions of the Constitution, continue in force". The controversy which has arisen can be resolved by examining the various laws, rules and statutory instruments cited before us and tracing the same back to either one of the two provisions of the Constitution viz. Article 139 or Article 240 thereof.
10. The core issue before us is as to whether the merger, creation or reorganization of the administrative departments of the Sindh Government has a bearing on the service structure, seniority, promotions and other terms of service of civil servants employed in the service of the Province. According to the learned counsel representing the appellants Muhammad Bachal Memon etc., the judgment of the High Court represents the correct interpretation of law. On the other hand, learned counsel representing Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah etc. Have argued that this judgment has been rendered without examining the above referred constitutional provisions and without taking into account the separate and distinct sources from which the administrative affairs of the Province and the Provincial laws respectively, relating to service matters derive their authority. Rules of Business of the Sindh Government made under Article 139 ibid show that the work of the Sindh Government was distributed and redistributed from time to time amongst the various administrative departments of the Province. Thus, the allocation of engineering works of the Sindh Government were assigned to departments in which engineers having similar educational qualifications, work experience etc. Were employed. As a consequence, we have noted that originally the building works of the Sindh Government were assigned to the works Department.
Thereafter by means of notification dated 27-8-1991, a part of the aforesaid works was carved out of the responsibility of the Works Department and was assigned to the Education Department. This was done by amending the Rules of Business prepared under Article 139 ibid, whereby in the scope of work allocated to the Works Department the words "except those entrusted to the Education Department" were inserted.
11. The amended Rules of Business will help in making matters clear and will facilitate understanding of the controversy between the parties. The period prior to and after 27-8-1991 may be juxtaposed as under to highlight the administrative changes in the various departments of the Sindh Government.
Communication Department prior to 27- 8-1991Communication Department after 27-8- 1991
1. Construction, maintenance and repairs of roads, bridges, ferries tunnels, ropeway, causeways and tramway lines.1. Construction, maintenance and repairs of roads, bridges, ferries, tunnels, ropeway, causeway and tramway lines.
2. Engineering training other than--
(i) Engineering Colleges; and
(ii) Engineering Schools.2. Engineering training other than--
(i) Engineering Colleges; and
(ii) Engineering Schools.
3. Inland waterways and Inland navigation.3. Inland waterways and Inland navigation.
4. Leases of Ferries and Bridges 4. Leases of Ferries and Bridges
5. Road Fund 5. Road Fund
6. Service matters, except those entrusted to the Services and General Administration Department.6. Service matters, except those entrusted to the Services and General Administration Department.
7. Tolls (including those levied by Local Bodies And Local Council).7. Tolls (including those levied by Local Bodies And Local Council).
(No Change)
Works Department prior to 27-8-1991 Works Department adter 27-8-1991
1. Accommodation for Federal and Provincial government servants in the Province, except that entrusted to the Services and General Administration Department.1. Accommodation for Federal and Provincial government servants in the Province, except that entrusted to the Services and General Administration Department.
2. Building--
(a) Construction, equipment maintenance, repairs and fixation of rent of all Government buildings residential and non- residential, including tents, dak bungalows and Circuit houses.
(b) Public Helath works pertaining to Government buildings and Government residential estates.2. Building--
(a) Construction, equipment maintenance, repairs and fixation of rent of all Government buildings residential and non-residential, including tents, dak bungalows and circuit houses [except those entrusted to the Education Department].
(b) Public Health works pertaining to Government buildings and Government residential estates.
3. Service matters except those entrusted to the Services and General Administration Department.3. Service matters except those entrusted to the Services and General Administration Department.
(Change Highlighted)
Education Department prior to 27-8-1991 Education Department after 27-8-1991
1. Co-ordination of Schemes for higher studies abroad.1. Co-ordination of Schemes for higher studies abroad.
2. Copy-right 2. Copy-right
3. Education of handicapped children specially deaf, dumb and blind.3. Education of handicapped children specially deaf, dumb and blind.
4. General Education.
(a) Primary education
(b) secondary Education
(c) University Education4. General Education.
(a) Primary education
(b) secondary Education
(c) University Education
5. Grant of Scholarship 5. Grant of Scholarship
6. Matter relating to Universities including those dealt with by the Governor as Chancellor.6. Matter relating to Universities including those dealt with by the Governor as Chancellor.
7. Promotion of scientific research.
7. Promotion of scientific research.
8. Production and Distribution of education and Scientific films.8. Production and Distribution of education and Scientific films.
9. Deleted 9. Deleted
10. Service matters, except those entrusted to the Services and General Administration Department10. Service matters, except those entrusted to the Services and General Administration Department
11. Technical education and research including agricultural and Engineering Colleges, Polytechnic and Vocational Schools, but excluding Medical Colleges and Law Colleges.11. Technical education and research, including Agricultural and Engineering Colleges, Polytechnic and Vocational Schools, but excluding Medical Colleges and Law Colleges.
12. Engineering Works pertaining to Education Department relating to Construction and maintenance of network of Educational centers including sub-sectors like College Education, Technical Education, Physical Education and Miscellaneous Education.
(Change highlighted)
12. It is thus, apparent that the items of work specified in Sr. No.12 above after 27-8-1991 constituted a change in the Rules of Business of the Sindh Government. The said item at Sr. No.12 prior to 27-8- 1991 was covered in the item at Sr. No.2 assigned to the Works Department. It may be emphasized that no change was made in the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 or the rules framed thereunder. In the context of the present matter it appears that the change brought about in the Rules of Business was construed as a change in the service laws of employees in the Works Department and the Education Department. For reasons considered in this judgment, this understanding of changes in the Rules of Business was erroneous.
13. With the promulgation of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001, the government of Sindh redistributed the responsibilities respectively of the Education Department and the C&W Department. On 1-11-2002, the Directorate of Engineering Services in the Education Department was merged with the C&W Department. What is important to bear in mind at this stage is that the notifications which have been mentioned above were issued in exercise of the powers vested in the Government of Sindh by Article 139 of the Constitution. There was no decision or legislation or notification made under the service laws of the Province which laws trace their origins to Article 240 of the Constitution.
14. According to the learned counsel representing Tanveer Hussain Shah etc., the notifications and changes made in the administrative departments of the Sindh Government did not have any bearing on the service structure and inter se seniority of the engineering cadre in the erstwhile Directorate of Education Engineering Works and the Cadre of Engineers in the C&W Department re- designated as Works and Services Department w.e.f. 1-11-2002.
It is instructive at this stage to examine the chronology of events starting from August 1991, relating to engineering works assigned to the Education Department. This can best be seen from the following:-- August 1977Establishment of Project Implementation Unit (PIU) headed by Project Director for 3rd Education Project Foreign Funded (I.D.A Credit No. 678- Pak), with one BS-20, one BS-18, one BS-17 and other Ministerial Establishment.
1983 Maintenance and repairs works of Education Institutions was also assigned to PIU.
1984 The PIU was wound-up and was renamed as Directorate of Engineering Works in Education Department to carry out Annual Development Program (ADP) relating to Primary and Secondary Education [without making necessary amendment in Rules of Business of Communication and Works (C&W) and Education Department (ED)].
IDA credited Second Primary Education Project, ADB funded Science Education Project. Owing to opening up of regular Directorate and enhancement of their functions, they started recruiting Assistant Engineers (BS-17) on ad hoc basis, along with transferred staff of PIU 3rd Education Project.
1991 Amendment was made in Rules of Business of Communication and Works (C&W) and Education Department (ED). The words "except those entrusted in the Education Department" were added at bottom of Serial No.9 of Buildings Department C&W. These functions were added at SI.No.12 in Education Department as under: "Engineering works pertaining to the Education Department relating to construction and maintenance of network of Education Centers including sub-sectors like college education, technical education, physical education and miscellaneous education."
2002 Administrative control of Education Works Directorate was transferred to C&W Department in the wake of Devolution Plan of 2001.
Amendments were made in Rules of Business, deleting S.No.12 from functions of ED and adding these duties at S.No.7 of Communication Department of C&W Department, while retaining the amendment made in 1991 in S. No.9 of Building Department of C&W Department with addition of words "except those entrusted in the Education Department" at the bottom of its S.No.9.
(emphasis supplied)
16. The term "department" is defined in Rule 2(xi) of the Sindh Government Rules of Business, 1986 to mean an administrative unit in the Secretariat responsible for the conduct of business in a specified sphere and the term "business" as per Rule 2(iv) means all work done by the Government.
Rule 3(ii) of the Sindh Government Rules of Business, 1986 further clarified that the business shall be distributed amongst several Departments in the manner indicated in Schedule-H. The relevant part of business allocated to the Works and Services Department given in the Schedule-II is as under:-- - "WORKS AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT
(1) Construction, maintenance and repairs of Road bridges, ferries, Tunnels, ropeways, Causeways and tramways lines.
(7) Engineering Works pertaining to the Education Department relating to construction and maintenance of network of Education Centers including subsections like college education, technical education, physical education and miscellaneous education.
9. Building-
(a) Construction, equipment, maintenance, repairs and fixation of rent of all Government residential and nonresidential, including tents, dak bungalows and circuit houses. Except those entrusted to the Education Department.
(b) Public Health works pertaining to Government buildings and Government residential."
17. Coming next to the term "Cadre", we find that this term has been defined in rule 9(4) of Fundamental Rules, 1922. The said Rule defines "cadre" to mean "the strength of the service or a part of the service sanctioned as a separate unit. Section 26(2) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 provides that any rules, orders or instructions regarding any terms and conditions of service of civil servants duly made or issued by an authority competent to make them and enforce immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, in so far as such rules, orders or instructions are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to be rules made under this Act. The terms "department" and "cadre" are not defined in the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the term "cadre" given in the Fundamental Rules is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973. The same, therefore, will apply to the service laws of the Province.
18. The Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, as noted above, has been enacted pursuant to the provisions of Article 240 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and deals with the appointments and conditions of service of persons, to and the terms and conditions of service of persons in connection with the affairs of the Province of Sindh and to provide for matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto. Section 8 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 provides that for proper administration of a service, cadre or post the appointing authority shall cause a seniority list of the members for the time being of such service, cadre or post to be prepared. Section 9 of this Act provides that a civil servant possessing such minimum qualifications as may be prescribed shall be eligible for promotion to a higher post for the time being reserved under the rules for departmental promotion in the service or cadre to which he belongs. Rule 9 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 provides that in each cadre in a department, there shall be a separate seniority list of a group of civil servants doing similar duties and performing similar functions and for whose appointment the same qualifications and experience have been laid down. Thus a cadre may be for the entire strength of the service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit.
19. What is of significance is that the cadre to which a civil servant belongs and the terms and conditions of his service or even the matter of promotion within his cadre can only be made by or under laws which are traced to and sourced in Article 240 of the Constitution. We are unable to see as to how allocation of administrative work or the configuration or re-designation of Government Departments or the framing of "rules for the allocation and transaction of business" of the Provincial Government can have an effect on the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant.
We have made an effort to understand the argument of learned ASCs for Bachal Memon etc., that the reallocation of work within administrative Departments has the effect, ipso facto of merging two existing cadres and thereby altering, inter alia, the service, seniority and promotion prospects of a civil servant. Such a serious consequence can only follow from laws or rules expressly (or by necessary intendment) declaring such to be the consequence of a Governmental or legislative action. Furthermore, any such law or rule must trace its origin to the appropriate Article in the Constitution i.e. Article 240 ibid because a legal instrument such as the Rules of Business can only relate to the allocation and transaction of the Government's business. And, as noted above, the term "business" has been defined as "all work done by Government". From a plain reading of Article 139(3) and the Sindh Government Rules of Business it is obvious that Article 139(3) does not extend to matters specified in Article 240 relating to "appointments to and the conditions of service of persons in the service of a Province" because such matters can only be dealt with and regulated "by or under Act of a Provincial Assembly" as per requirements of Article 240 of the Constitution.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and upon consideration in detail inter alia, of Articles 139 and 240 of the Constitution, the Sindh Government Rules of Business, 1972, the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder, we have arrived at the conclusions below.
20. From the date on which business relating to the Education Engineering Works was transferred and assigned to the Education Department, the Education Department became empowered to make initial recruitment of engineers for the engineering works assigned to it and a cadre was established for such engineers employed in the Education Department. This cadre was distinct from the cadre for engineers in the C&W Department. These two separate cadres continued their parallel existence firstly upto 1-11-2002 when the Works and Services Department once again was assigned all engineering works including the work which was being undertaken by the Directorate of Education Engineering Works within the Education Department. What is even more relevant is that even after 2002, the two cadres continued in parallel alongside each other. The learned Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated 12-11-2010 has observed that the two streams merged into one which was a mujmua-al-bahrain.
21. It is at this point that the controversy before us is brought into bold relief. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of a judgment rendered in the case titled Nazir Ahmed Sheikh and others v. Government of Sindh and others dated 6-1-2004. The learned Bench in the precedent case made reference to a summary approved by the Governor of the Province relating to the administrative structure in the Districts of This structure was to be reorganized into departments. It was observed by the High Court that vide notification dated 17-9-2002 the engineering works of the Education Department were brought within the scope of responsibilities of the Communication Department through an amendment which was made in the Rules of Business. It has also been noted that thereafter, vide notification dated 1-11-2002, as a result of reconfiguration of departments, the works and services department was created and it was clarified through a circular of 17-12-2002 that the Communication and Works Department had been renamed as the Works and Services Department. On this basis it was held in the cited "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of precedent that 1-11-2002 would be treated as the date on which the cadres "of all employees forming parts of Works and Services Department" would stand merged. This conclusion, we may say with utmost respect to the learned Judges in the High Court, appears to be a result of inadequate assistance from the Bar because important constitutional provisions mentioned above i.e. Article 139(3), Article 240 (ibid) and the implications thereof, were not brought to the attention of the learned Bench.
22. As has been noted above, the terms and conditions of service including seniority inter se between civil servants can only be altered/effected by means of an Act of the Provincial Assembly as has been expressly stipulated in Article 240 of the Constitution or by rules made within the rule making power given in section 26 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973. The reasoning of the High Court in the case of Nazir Ahmed Sheikh (supra) has been followed by the learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court in its judgment dated 12-11-2010, impugned before us. Under the Constitutional scheme considered above, it is clear that administrative changes or allocation and reallocation of the business of the Province can be made under the Rules of Business made under Article 139(3) (ibid) but changes in the service conditions including seniority of Civil Servants can only be made under Article 240 (ibid). The Provincial Assembly did not make any amendments in the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 or the rules framed thereunder. We, therefore, are unable to accept the reasoning of the learned Division Benches of the Sindh High Court in the case of Nazir Ahmed Sheikh (supra) and in the judgment of 12-11-2010 impugned before us.
23. At this point we also need to take into account two orders of this Court which were referred to by learned counsel representing Muhammad Bachal Memon, etc. The first order was dated 3-2-2003 and it was pursuant to this order that the matter was remanded to the Sindh High Court resulting in the judgment in the case of Nazir Ahmed Sheikh (supra). In this order dated 3-2-2003 the Supreme Court did not adjudicate the question as to whether one seniority list was to be made. The order of the Sindh High Court was set aside and the matter was remanded. The judgment dated 6-1-2004 in the case titled Nazir Ahmed Sheikh (supra) was rendered in the post remand proceedings.
24. The second order of this Court dated 28-12-2010 which was referred to by learned counsel for Muhammad Bachal Memon was simply made in the following terms:-- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this appeal on issuance of joint seniority list of Engineering Works Directorate and Communication Works Department. The case of the appellant shall be considered on its own merits by the Provincial Selection Board No.1 within a period of three months."
This order was sought to be reviewed but the review petition was dismissed on 21-10-2011. We have not been shown any judgment of this Court wherein any adjudication has been made as to the legality and validity of the joint seniority list prepared by the respondent-department. In fact it was decided by this Court that the case of the appellant thereunder would be considered on its own merits by the Provincial Selection Board. It is, thus, clear to us that the adjudication of the question as to joint seniority list has come up before this Court for the first time in these appeals.
25. With great respect to the learned Judges of the High Court it is apparent that the implications of Articles 139 and 240 of the Constitution were not taken into account. Perhaps these constitutional provisions were not argued or brought to the attention of the Court thus leading to a judgment rendered per incuriam. As has been considered above by us, the rules of business cannot be made in respect of service matters. Even if an attempt is made by the Provincial Government to provide for a change or merger of cadres this would have to be done in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, which relates to seniority or through legislation. The issue before us is clearly an issue of seniority because Muhammad Bachal Memon etc. Claim to be senior to Tanveer Hussain Shah while the latter claims seniority over Muhammad Bachal Memon etc. The issue of seniority is quintessentially a matter of service laws. It is for this reason that the provincial legislature has enacted the Sindh Civil Servants Act and has laid down the law as to seniority in terms of section 8 of the said statute. Section 8 ibid has been supplemented by the prescribed rules viz. The Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1975. It is stated in Rule 9 thereof that a separate seniority list shall be maintained for each cadre in a Department. Prior to 1-11-2002, the parties before us were employed in separate departments viz. C&W Department and Education Department. Their cadres were thus separate. The separate cadres continued, as noted above, even after 2002 and separate seniority lists were maintained even after 1-11-2002. It is only on 1-3-2012 that a combined seniority list has been prepared. We say with great respect that there is no legal basis for a combined seniority list even though there are two judgments of the Sindh High Court viz. (i) judgment dated 12-11-2010 passed by Division Bench of the Sindh High Court in C.P No. D-809 of 2006 etc. And (ii) post-remand judgment dated 6-1- 2004 of the Division Bench of the Sindh High Court in C.P No. D-1983.
26. Following from the above, we hold that the merger of G government departments does not by itself, amount to merger of cadres. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 5-K of 2014, filed by Muhammad Bachal Memon and others, is dismissed and the Civil Appeals Nos. 311 to 314 of 2013, filed by Syed Tanveer Hussain and others, are allowed. The judgment dated 12-11-2010 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court is set aside while the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 28-10-2013 is affirmed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.