1. ' MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Hyderabad on 17th December, 1956. Thereafter he was promoted as Senior Clerk on 1st July, 1959 and by an order dated 20th November, 1968 he was confirmed as Junior Clerk with effect from 18th December, 1956 and as a Senior Clerk with effect from 1st July, 1960.
2. ' In the year 1967 the appellant was selected as Naib-Tehsildar and thereafter he was promoted as Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar in the Rehabilitation Department on regular basis.
3. ' In the year 1980 the Rehabilitation Department work being on the department was solely to be wound up and as a measure of retrenchment the services of the appellant were replaced at the disposal of his parent department namely the Commissioner's Office, Hyderabed by an order dated 25th July, 1980. By that time the Divisional Commissioner's Secretariat too had been wound up as a result of disintegration of the Provinces, The Commissioner Hyderabad, therefore, declined to absorb the appellant in his office and the matter was referred to the Services and general Administration Department but they also could not arrange to provide him with an equivalent job.
4. Consequently the appellant was declared as surplus and his services were dispensed with by an order dated 17th March, 1981. It is not understood why the appellant was not even offered the post of Senior Clerk in which he had been confirmed, Since on confirmation the civil servants lien is automatically retained in parent department. The appellant filed a departmental appeal but it Was dismissed by an order dated 4th October, 1981. The appellant has accordingly preferred this service appeal before the Tribunal.
5. ' It is the case of the appellant that he was serving as a regular Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar while the Officers in the same grade namely respondents Nos. 3 to 5 still retained in service, were junior to him and had been appointed on ad hoc basis. The appellant was appointed as Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar in Settlement Department on ad hoc basis on 10th January, 1977. His appointment was regularized with effect from 29th January, 1977. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed on 12th May, 1974 and 29th June, 1974 and their appointments were regularized on 5th October, 1976 i. e.
6. Earlier in point of time to regularization of the appointment of the appellant. The case of Respondent No, 5 is however different from that of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. He was appointed on ad hoc basis with effect from 16th June, 1979 i. e. Long after the appointment of the appellant had even been regularized and respondent No, 5 though retained in service still continues to be on ad hoc basis. The A. A. G. Was pointedly asked to throw some light on this irregularity, as to why respondent No, 5 a junior ad hoc Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar was retained in service whereas the appellant's services were retrenched and he was declared surplus. The learned A. A. G. Took time to consult the department concerned and he has made a statement that there is no information available in respect of this anomaly and perhaps the discretion has not been properly exercised.
7. Under section 11 (2) of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, it is provided that ; "where, on the abolition of a post or reduction in the number of posts in a cadre or grade, the services of a civil servant are required to be terminated, the person whose services are terminated shall ordinarily be the one who is the junior most in such cadre or grade". Therefore, ordinarily respondent No, 5 being junior and on ad hoc basis should have been declared as surplus while the appellant who was senior to him and on regular basis should have been retained in preference to him. The termination of the services of the appellant is obviously in violation of the provisions of Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the normal practice and procedure. The order of termination of services of the appellant is accordingly set aside and it is directed that he may be re-instated in service with all the back benefits. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.