' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---These Petitions for leave to Appeal are directed against judgment dated 13.3.2005, of the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, whereby 08 Service Appeals filed by the Petitioners/Respondents were disposed of, vide impugned judgment in the following terms:- i. Sindh Reserve Police and all other branches of Police Force such as Rapid Respondent Force (RRF), Sindh Reserve Police (SRP), Prosecution Branch, Telecommunication Branch, Female Police, Special Branch (Crime Branch) are separate cadres other than the District Police/Regular Police, although all of them are one Police Force which is an attached department of the Home Department under the Sindh Government Rules of Business, 1986 and Inspector General of Police is head of attached department. ii. Since all branches of Police Force are assigned with different and separate functions they are different cadres, therefore, the Provincial Government shall frame recruitment rules and the terms and conditions of their service separately for each cadre, except for those cadres in respect of which separate rules are already there such as Women Police and Prosecution Branch etc. Iii. After framing of rules pertaining to recruitment and other terms and conditions of service as required under section 2 of Police Act 1861, separate seniority list of each cadre and in each scale/rank shall be issued as required under rule 9 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 wherein it is provided 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 same qualifications and experience have been laid down. iv. There is no provision in law for transfer of officers/officials from one cadre to another cadre, therefore, all the transfers made from Sindh Reserve Police to District Police in violation of law and in pursuance of various Standing Orders are hereby nullified and all such officers are directed to be repatriated to their parent branch i,e, Sindh Reserve Police. v. All the Standing Orders issued from time to time by different Inspector Generals of Police/Provincial Police Officers without approval of Provincial Government are declared to be illegal and void to the extent of prescribing the recruitment rules, terms and conditions of service of the officers/men in Sindh Reserve Police including devising of transfer policy and pertaining to the assignment of seniority in violation of rules. Vi: The Inspector General of Police Sindh is directed not to issue any Standing Order under section 12 of the Police Act, 1861 without approval of Provincial Government and even with the approval of Provincial Government no orders. Can be issued by Inspector General of Police pertaining to the recruitment and terms and conditions of service of the members of the Police Force in different branches and cadre, as such powers can be exercised by Provincial Government only by virtue of section 2 of Police Act, 1861. vii. The Inspector General of Police Sindh is directed to ensure that all the training courses prescribed in the Police Rules 1934, are duly imparted and the rules pertaining to the maintaining of various promotion lists are observed and the seniority lists are prepared strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Police Rules, 1934, after due observation of Police Rules, by the District Superintendents of Police Deputy Inspector Generals and the Inspector General himself. It is further directed that promotion list 'E' shall be published in Police Gazette as required under rule 13.11. viii. The Inspector General of Police is further directed to ensure that no officiating promotion shall be made as a matter of normal course and such orders shall be made strictly in accordance with the Police Rules and merely for the purpose of deciding fitness and ability of officers concerned. Ix.
The Inspector General of Police is further directed to ensure that no officer is confirmed in any rank while serving in officiating capacity, without promotion in the substantive rank. x. The Inspector General of Police Sindh is further directed to ensure that no antedated confirmations and promotions shall be made and the dates of confirmations and promotions shall not be revised by any officer or Committee of the officers. Xi. The impugned seniority list dated 7.2.2014, is set aside and no promotion shall be made on the basis thereof. The officers who were transferred from Sindh Reserve Police to Regular Police shall be promoted on preparation of their seniority list in SRP, after framing of rules by the Provincial Government in respect of Sindh Reserve Police fresh seniority list shall be prepared for the District Police, Initially provisional and after filing of objections the final seniority list and thereafter the promotion in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall be considered by Departmental Promotion Committee: xii. The Provincial Government is further directed to provide reasonable quotas .Of promotion for each branch of Police Force/Cadre in accordance with their strength. In this behalf the direction of Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghunath Parsad Sing v. Secretary Home (Police)
Department, Government Bihar, 1989 M LD 2153, should be kept in view. It has been directed by the Supreme Court of India that "reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly."
2. Originally, Petition+ers Messrs Faqir Muhammad Jatoi, Masroor Ahmad Jatoi, Sohrab Ali Meo, Lal Bux Solangi, Yar Muhammad Rind filed Service Appeals before the Tribunal, impugning the final seniority list dated 07.02.2014. Rafiq Ahmed Abbasi Respondent No,1 in Civil Petition No,915 of 2015 was also one of the Appellants before the Sindh Service Tribunal.
3. Inspectors Ijaz Ali Memon and Muhammad Azam Khan also filed Appeals before the Tribunal, being aggrieved of the transfer of personnel of the Sindh Reserve+ Police to the Regular Police Force, due to which their seniority was adversely affected. They also impugned the seniority list dated 07.02.2014. They prayed that the Sindh Reserve Police be declared as a separate cadre.
4. Brief facts of the case of each of the Petitioners who filed Appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal are as under:--- C.P.No,529 of 2015.
' Faqir Muhammad Jatoi v+. Province of Sindh
5. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive process. On 25.5.1989, he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector and then promoted as Inspector vide order dated 20.9.2004 w,e,f, 12.1.1998. On 30.6.2006, the Inspector General of Police, Sindh, issued a tentative seniority list of Inspectors of Sindh Police, whereafter, on 20.12.2008 another tentative seniority list of Inspectors was issued by the Inspector General of Police, Sindh. This list was withdrawn and a revised seniority list was issued on 20.1.2009. On 20.4.2010, yet another seniority list was issued and the Petitioner was placed at serial No,403 of the said list. The Petitioner raised objections to the said tentative seniority list, which were never responded to. On 23.10.2013, without finalizing the tentative seniority list issued on 20.4.2010, yet another tentative seniority list was issued wherein the Petitioner was placed at serial No,254.
Ultimately, a final seniority list was issued on 7.2.2014, on the basis of which a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened and more than 80 Inspectors were promoted to the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Petitioner filed a departmental Appeal, which was not decided within the statutory period, therefore, he preferred a Service Appeal before the Sindh Service Tribunal, challenging the seniority list dated 7.2.2014 with the prayer to assign him proper seniority. The Appeal of the Petitioner was disposed of, vide impugned judgment. '
C.P.No,530 of 2015.
' Masroor Ahmed Jatoi v. Province of Sindh.
6. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police after qualifying the requisite examination. On 25.1.1990, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector and on 8.7.1998, he was promoted as Inspector. On his representation, the Petitioner was allowed inter se seniority with his batch-mates w,e,f, 11.1.1996, and he was confirmed as Inspector w,e,f, 11.1.1996, vide order dated 20.9.2004. On 22.9.2005, the Petitioner was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police out of turn on gallantry basis and was relegated to the post of Inspector in the advent of judgment of this Court in the year 2013.
7. Two .Or three seniority lists were issued in the interregnum, whereafter on 7.2.2014, a final seniority list was issued on the basis of which more than 80 Inspectors were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police. After exhausting the departmental remedy, ultimately, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the Sindh Service Tribunal, challenging the final seniority list dated 7.2.2014, which, was disposed of by the impugned judgment.
Civil Petition No,531 of 2015.
' Sohrab Ali Mao v. Province of Sindh
8. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive process. On 22.5.1989, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector and on 8.7.1998, was further promoted as Inspector. On his representation, the Petitioner was allowed inter se seniority with his batch-mates w,e,f, 11.1.1996, and was confirmed as Inspector w,e,f, 11.1.1996, vide order dated 20.9.2004, a series of tentative seniority lists of Inspectors were issued and, lastly, on 7.2.2014, a final seniority list of Inspectors was issued on the basis of which 80 Inspectors were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police. The Petitioner challenged the said seniority list before the Sindh Service Tribunal, by filing an Appeal, which was .Disposed of by the impugned judgment.
Civil Petition No,532 of 2015.
' Yar Muhammad Rind v. Province of Sindh and others.
9. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive process. On 25.1.1990, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector and on 8.7.1998, he was further promoted as Inspector. On 8.7.2000, he was confirmed as Inspector, on acceptance of his representation, whereby, he was allowed seniority with his batch-mates w,e,f, 11.1.1996. Many seniority lists were issued in the intervening period and ultimately on 7.2.2014, a final seniority list of Inspectors was issued on the basis of which more than 80 Inspectors were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police. The Petitioner challenged the final seniority list dated 7.2.2014, by way of an Appeal before the Sindh Service Tribunal, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment.
Civil Petition No,533 of 2015.
' Lal Bux Solangi v. Province of Sindh
10. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive process. On 22.5.1989, he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector and on 8.7.1998 was further promoted as Inspector. On his representation to the Competent Authority, the Petitioner was allowed seniority with his batch-mates w,e,f, 11.1.1996 and was confirmed as Inspector w,e,f, 12.1.1998, vide order dated 20.9.2004.
11. After a series of tentative seniority lists, on 7.2.2014, a final seniority list was issued, on the basis of which more than 80 Inspectors were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police. The Petitioner challenged the said seniority list by filing a Service Appeal before the Sindh Service Tribunal, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment.
Civil Petition No,494 of 2015 ' Gul Hassan Jatoi v. Aijaz Ali Memon and others
12. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police and on 8.7.1989; he was promoted as Sub-Inspector on officiating basis. On 20.9.2004, he was confirmed as Sub-Inspector. He was finally promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, vide Notification dated 24.3.2014. He was one of the Respondents before the Sindh Service Tribunal, in Service Appeals filed by the Petitioners Faqir Muhammad Jatoi and others, which were disposed of by the Tribunal, vide impugned judgment.
Civil Petition No,507 of 2015.
' Abdul Razzak Bugti v. Yar Muhammad Rind
13. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police.
On 25.5.1989, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector and transferred to the District Police. In the year 2001, he was promoted as Inspector. His name was included in the seniority list of Inspectors dated 7.2.2014, which was forwarded to the Home Department. On 25.1.2015, a meeting of the DPC was convened in which 155 Inspectors were considered for promotion, however, they were not notified due to restraining orders passed by the Service Tribunal in Service Appeal 134 of 2014 filed by Lal Bux Solangi. He was one of the Respondents in the Service Appeals filed by Faqir Muhammad Jatoi and others, which were disposed of by the Tribunal, 'vide impugned judgment.
Civil Petitions Nos.906 and 911 to 917 of 2015.
' Government of Sindh v. Yar Muhammad Rind and others.
14. The Government of Sindh has filed the above-said Petitions against the impugned judgment, pleading that the Respondents in the Petitions were appointed as A.S.I. In the Sindh Reserve Police on various dates. After issuance of the provisional seniority lists of the Respondents, objections were called and upon receipt of the objections, a Committee was constituted to finalize the seniority list, which was issued on 07.02.2014. It has been further pleaded that on 20th September, 1972, an order was issued by the Sindh Government, creating vacancies for a Special Striking Force in the Sindh Police, which has been wrongly construed as a special cadre; that in the aftermath of separation of East Pakistan, language riots disrupted in the Province Sindh and certain other parts of the country, due to which it was deemed necessary to have Police Force available to supplement the existing Police Force in Police Stations and Districts in the advent of dire need. This force was created for three months but the same continued thereafter; that vide notification dated 11.07.1973, the nomenclature of the Special Striking Force was changed to the Sindh Constabulary and designations of the officers of the Force were also changed. In the said notification it was further provided: - "The Force shall be administered as one provincial reserve and its disposition will be decided by the I. G. P from time to time according to necessity.
' The Force shall be administered as a part of the Police Force and provisions of Police Act, the Police Rules and other relevant law shall apply. The officers of this constabulary shall exercise such powers of command, control, punishment and appeals etc. Are exercisable by the officers of equivalent rank."
15. It has been further pleaded that, thereafter, a Provincial Armed Reserve (PAR) was also created, which was subsequently merged in the Sindh Constabulary; that finally on 30.04.1985, the Sindh Constabulary and Anti-Dacoit Force was re-designated as the Sindh Reserve Police and designations of the officers of the force were also changed; that thereafter various administrative and standing orders were issued by the Inspector General of Police and concerned Deputy Inspector Generals of Police, without approval of the Sindh Government, which were merely administrative orders, for efficient organization and guidance of the officers; that dying the years 1984 to 1987, all appointments were made in the Sindh Reserve Police and no appointment was made in the Districts, due to administrative reasons and after the year 1987, no new recruitment had taken place in the Sindh Reserve Police; that Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Constables were recruited, from time to time and assigned to work in the Sindh Reserve Police, which arrangement was also adopted in the Province of Punjab; that the Respondents claiming seniority filed Appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal, which were disposed of vide impugned judgment.
16. The Appellants before the Tribunal have filed Civil Petitions Nos.529, 530, 531, 532, 533 of 2015, against the impugned judgment. One of the Petitioners in Civil Petitions Nos.493, 494, 505 and 506 of 2015, is Gul Hassan Jatoi, who was one of the Respondents before the Tribunal. Civil Petitions Nos.507 and 508 were filed by Abdul Razzaq Bugti, who was also Respondent before the Tribunal.
Civil Petition No,601 of 2015 is filed by Abdullah, against the impugned judgment. The Province of Sindh has challenged the impugned judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, before this Court in Civil Petitions Nos.906 and 911 to 917 of 2015.
17. The learned ASC Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Counsel for the Inspector General of Police, Sindh, and for the Petitioner Gul Hassan Jatoi in C.P.L.As. Nos. 493, 494, 505 and 506 of 2015, has contended that the Police Order 2002 was repealed through the Sindh (Repeal of the Police Order 2002 and Revival of the Police Act 1861) 2011 and it was the Police Act of 1861 which is currently in force. He made reference to various provisions of the Police Act 1861. He stated that under section 2 of the Police Act, 1861, .The entire Police Establishment shall be one force; whereas, section 4 of the Act provides that the Inspector General of Police is the Administrator of the Police force, Section 5 defines the powers of the Inspector General of Police and Section 12 empowers the Inspector General of Police to frame rules and pass orders, subject to approval of the Provincial Government.
18. The learned ASC Mr. Bajwa has contended that Rule 12 of Chapter XII of the Police Rules 1934, deals with the appointments and enrolments in the Police Force. Rule 12.1 deals with the general recruitment, Rule 12.3 relates to recruitment to the Prosecution service and Rule 12.3(B) pertains to appointment in Technical service. He further submits that Rule 17, Chapter XVII of the Police Rules pertains to the Reserve Police. The Sub-Rules of Rule 17 provide permanent reserve, a second reserve mobilized under the orders of Inspector General of Police, and a third reserve mobilized on the orders of the Government. He has further contended that there was no order by the Provincial Government creating the Sindh Reserve Police as a separate cadre. He then relied upon Rules 13.18 and 12.3 contending that these rules are relevant with reference to determining the seniority of the Police Personnels.
19. The learned Counsel contended that Rule 9(4) of the Fundamental Rules 1922 and Rule 9 of the.
Sindh Civil Service Rules 1950, define "Cadre". In support of his submission that the Sindh Reserve Police is not a separate cadre, Mr. Bajwa placed reliance on Muhammad Bachal Memon and others v. Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah and others (2014 SCM R 1539), PIAC thr. Its Chairman and others v. Samina Masood and others. (PLD 2005 SC 831) (Para 11), Dr. Ahmad Saiman Waris, Assistant Professor, Services Hospital, Lahore v. Dr. Naeem Akhtar and 5 others (PLD 1997 SC 382)
(Para 11, pg.90). He submitted that other provinces are treating their Reserve Police as part of their regular police and in support of the aforesaid contention he has relied upon Sardar Khursheedul Hassan v. IGP and others 1991 PLC (C. S.) 208, Muhammad Ali Qureshi and 18 others v. Secretary, Home {{INCOMPLETE}}} {{LABOUR CASES START}} easy installments (I,e, @ 1/3) and prayed that this Labour appeal filed by department may kindly be dismissed. Similarly the impugned judgment dated 23.2.2014 passed in grievance petition No,108 of 2010 by the learned Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala to the extent of imposing condition for depositing the all pensionary dues, which the respondent had already been received, within one month upon the reinstatement of the respondent be modified that after adjustment from half back benefits, if any amount is remained the same may be recovered from the pay in easy installments (I,e, @ 1/3) and the respondent be reinstatement in service.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/GEPCO has focused his arguments mainly on two grounds. In the first instant, he has argued that the grievance petition is badly barred by time. The appellant was obliged to submit application for the condonation of delay because without such application, the learned Labour Court cannot condone the delay. He has further submitted that approaching to a wrong forum is not a plausible ground for the condonation of delay. This Tribunal has once again gone through the law laid down by the. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 2006 SC 602 and 2010 SCM R 1484 in relation with the condonation of delay and agree with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that after compulsory retirement of respondent on 13.11.2004, the respondent was supposed to file departmental appeal within fifteen days of the order. In this case, the respondent challenged the order dated 13.11.2004 on 11.1.2005 when he filed departmental appeal which was at the very face of it was badly time barred but respondent never filed application for the condonation of delay.
9. Secondly, learned counsel for the appellant/GEPCO has submitted that the respondent/Bilal Ahmad is no more employee of the appellants because he has received all of his pensionary benefits.
10. On scanning of record, it transpired that the respondent was compulsorily retired on the allegation of theft in the year 2004 and an F.I.R. Under section 379, P.P.C. Was also registered on 26.10,2004 against the respondent with Police Station Aroop, District Gujranwala. Thereafter the respondent without any coercion voluntarily accepted his compulsorily retirement and on 11.7.2005 received Rs,1,50,152/- on account of his gratuity, on 14.7.2005 Rs,7880/- G.P Fund and on 20.4.2006 his revised amount of G.P Fund. The respondent/Bilal Ahmad has also been receiving regularly the amount of his monthly pension. Thereafter the respondent is estopped by his words and conduct to ask for withdrawal of his compulsory retirement.
11. The respondent/Bilal Ahmad has also filed appeal against GEPCO which is barred by 2 months and 16 days in which he has prayed that the impugned judgment to the extent of imposing condition for depositing all the pensionary dues be set aside. The prayer itself express mala fide intention of respondent/Bilal Ahmad.
12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal No,GA-135/2015 titled Bilal Ahmad v. GEPCO is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. While the Appeal No,GA-77/2015 titled GEPCO v. Bilal Ahmad is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside with this finding that 'the respondent/Bilal Ahmad is no more employee of the appellant/GEPCO therefore, the very grievance petition was incompetent.