MUHAMMAD YAR WALLANA (DISTRIC T & SESSIONS JUDGE), MEMBER . --- Succinctly stated, the appellant Muhammad Altaf, Stenographer in the office of Deputy Director Food Division , Bahawalpur has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 thereby assailing the order dated 18.05.201 1, letters dated 04.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 with a prayer of declare the said order and letters as illegal, against law and facts, discriminatory , violative of fundamental rights and that the respondents be directed to act in accordance with law and the constitution to give effect to his regularization in his service as Stenographer w.e.f.
21.07.1989 when the juniors of the appellant were regularized. The appellant was initially appointed on adhoc basis as Stenographer in the Food Office Bahawalpur vide order dated 21.07.1989 for an initial perio d of 11 months with successive extensions of one year each and last extension through an order dated 20.09.1992 in compliance of direction of Provincial Government/Chief Minister Punjab conveyed through letter . No, EO (Steno-BWP-1 1)/91, dated 12.11.1991 till arrival of the regular incumbent by the competent authority . The appellant submitted various applications to the respondents seeking regularization of service and the respondent No, 2 i,e, Secretary Food Department, Government of the Punjab after approval of summary from the Chief Minister Punjab passed order dated 12.05.201 1, whereas other officials who were also employees of Government of the Punjab were regularized from the date of their initial appointments. The appellant mentioned filing of different applications in his appeal to the authorities concerned i,e, respondents but of no avail, which gave rise to filing of the instant appeal before this forum.
2. The respondents in their comments have defended the impugned order dated 18.05.201 1, letters dated 04.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 on the grounds that the summary was moved and approved by the Chief Minister Punjab, which was conveyed to the appellant vide letter No, SOF(E)4(29)96(P) dated 12.05 .2011 in relaxation of Rules 4, 17, 18 and 22 of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 and his later request for grant of service benefits from the date of initial appointment was rejected vide letter No SOF(E)4(29)96(P), dated 06.11.2012. The respondents in their comments submitted that they were not competent to grant service benefits of seniority as well as pay and emoluments from the date of initial appointment of the appellant.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that lot of other employees of Government of the Punjab inducted on adhoc basis and later on having been regularized were given benefit of seniority and service as well as that of all other service benefits from the date of their initial appointment but the appellant was discriminated with impunity and in total disregard of the policies adopted, by Government of the Punjab for such regularization etc. and also in violation of established law on the subject. He placed his reliance upon Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v. Government of Punjab and others (2003 SCMR 291), Ikram Bari and 524 others v. National Bank of Pakistan (2005 SCMR 100), Muhammad Akhtar Shirani v. Punjab Text Book Board (2004 SCMR 1077 ) and unreported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as that of Punjab Service Tribunal to support his contentions and for acceptance of the appeal.
4. Conversely , the learned District Attorney was of the view that an adhoc appointee had got no right for confirmation in service by regularization and he was also barred for claiming seniority in view of the provisions of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. He submitted that the competent authority had got discretion either to allow such request or to refuse the same and that the appellant had no vested right in this regard to claim before this forum. He submitted for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have considered arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney and have gone through the record in entirely and have also sought guidance from 'the celebrated judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court on the subject by the able assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney .
6. It is deemed appropriate to first of all discuss the applicability of the provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The cause of action in present case had arisen to the appellant on issuance of letter No, SOF(E)4(29)96(P), dated 12.05.201 1 got issued on behalf of respondent No,
2. The appellant moved applications to the respondent No, 4 and the respondent No, 4 addressed a letter bearing No, 1279 dated 12.12.201 1 to District Accounts Officer Bahawalpur for verification of fixation of pay and another letter bearing No, 260 dated 04.03.2013 reiterating the earlier letter addressed to the District Accounts Officer, Bahawalpur , wherefrom it transpires that the appellant had been agitating this matter before the concerned authorities i,e, respondents No, 4 and that too after conveying of letter No, SOF(E)4(29)96(P), dated 06.11.2012, hence, the appellant remained vigilant in pursuance of his right for redressal of his grievance of refusal to grant benefits of his service from his initial appointment on adhoc basis.
Therefore, nothing contrary is available on record and from the correspondence between respondents No, 4 and 5 is available on record, which dates back to 14.03.2013 and the instant appeal was preferred on 21.06.2013 bearing diary No, 2323, hence the condonation of time limitation in such circumstances is just and appropriate. The view of the Hon'ble apex Court in reported case as Ikram Bari and 524 others v. National Bank of Pakistan (2005 SCMR 100) brings it to light that the exceptional circumstances are always to be seen by the Courts and Tribunals while entertaining and adjudicating any cause. Exceptional circumstances in the present case have been described above and appellant remained vigilant and not indolent in seeking remedy before the authorities concerned by making applications which date back to March 2013 and such record is available with this file, hence in all circumstances I would allow the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and would condone the delay , if any , in filing of this appeal.
7. The grievance seeking redressal in this appeal is confined to the extent of grant of service benefits from the date of initial appointment as the competent authorities in present case had regularized the service of present appellant but with immediate effect and not from the date of initial appointment. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance upon dictum of the Hon'ble apex Court in Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v. Government of Punjab and others (2003 SCMR 291) and Muhammad Akhtar Shirani v. Punjab Text Book Board (2004 SCMR 1077 ) and unreported judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court as well as the judgments of Punjab Service Tribunal as reference. I have gone through the judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court as well as the other unreported judgments.
8. For clarity of purpose it would be appropriate to observe that the appellant was appointed as Stenographer on adhoc basis on 21.07.1989 who earned successive extensions in his adhoc period of service till his regularization through order impugned hereunder dated 18.05.201 1 of respondent No,
2. The respondents in present case have not brought on record an iota of evidence to establish any misconduct, irregularity in performance of his jobs or any other sort of mischief like inefficiency etc. When the respondents have already regularized the services of present appellant, the conditions for consideration of adhoc employees adopted in policie s of Government of the Punjab following policies of Federal Government bearing letter No, 2/3/94 CP-5, dated 21.10.1997 of Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad would not be relevant in present case, therefore, the question simplicitor in nature is as to whether the appellant was entitled to regularization in service from the date of his initial appointment or from the date when his services were regularized. In this regard the learned District Attorney and the departmental representative had contended that the adhoc appointee was not entitled to any sort of claim of seniority in service as well as back benefits from the date of his initial appointment in view of the explanation of Rule 7 of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. It is worth reminding that the appellant has raised question of unequal treatment in his-case viz-a-viz the cases of other adhoc appointees who have been granted regul arization from the date of their initial appointments. He has cited t case of Abdul Ghafoor , Junior Clerk, Office of District Food Controller , Sahiwal and later on during the course of arguments the cases of other government employees were also brought to the notice of this Tribunal, whereby , the regularization in service had to take effect from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of actual regularization of service. In present case retention of services of present appellant for about a period of more than two decades is factor worth consideratio n as after having successfully served the government department for a such long time a government official, even if appointed on adhoc basis or contract basis, develops legitimate expectancy for regularization of his Servic es as the post against which he/she has been working for such long time was by all means a permanent post against which the process of adhoc appointment is always deprecated as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a reported case Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v.
Government of Punjab and others (2003 SCMR 291). The scope and objective of adhoc appo intment is always for- meeting the purpose of public service through a stop-gap-arrangement and the matter of selection against such permanent posts is not deferred for such a long time rather a process of permanent selection through a mode of appointment enshrined under the relevant provisions of law is initiated and accomplished in true spirit of fair and transparent mode of selection which the respondents bitterly failed in present case and thus were forced to regularize the services of present appellant. 'In the wake of such circumstances the refusal to grant regularization from the date of initial appointment had definitely deprived the appellant all service benefits like earning of increments, up-gradation, if any, and the seniority in service as well. The respondents have not brought any material to show that the junior in post to that of the appellant was not made senior to him by way of regularization from the date of regularization of services of the appellant. Thus by all means the appellant had been deprived from the right of seniority and all service financial benefits.
9. In the wake of the circumstances leadin g to infringement of service rights of the appellant and in resume of facts enumerated above it is found that the respondents took inconsistent plea of availability of no right for seeking regularization by an adhoc appointee on one hand while accepted his claim and regularized his services on the other hand. The respondents have failed to show any valid reason for refusal of such service benefits from the date of adhoc appointment. It is an established principle of law that seniority of civil servants in service is a benefit and advantage gained by virtue of continuou s services rendered to the satisfaction of the employer , which aspect should not be ignored when adhoc appointments are regularized. I am fortified in my view from dictum of Hon'ble apex Court reported as 2014 SCMR 1289 at page No, 1312 paragraph No, 31, which reads as follows:-- "We find that even in service matter while considering the seniority of civil servants, the seniority is reckoned from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of confirmation or regularization."
10. In similar circumstances where appoin tments were made in derogation of established rules for appointment the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its widely reported and celebrated judgments has 'laid down in Muhammad Akhtar Shirani v . Punjab Text Book Board ( 2004 SCMR 1077 ) and observed as under:-- "---Wrong exercise of power ---Illegal appointments---Penalizing petty employees--V alidity---Beneficiary of illegal appointment cannot be blamed alone because primarily the authority who had actually wrongfully exercised its powers, for the reasons known to it, was bound to be held responsible for the same---Instead of penalizing the petty employees like Chowkidar , Naib-Qasid, and Junior Clerk etc. who had to earn livelihood to support their families and if after having served for a long period they were removed from service discriminately , such action would not promote the cause of action and it would give rise to a number of problems---Instead of removing the employees from service, action should have been taken against the authority who wrongly exercised its powers."
11. In view of the above case-law it follows that any unlawful exercise by the public functionary could not be blamed upon the beneficiary alone, rather such public functionaries were also held responsible for the same and in such circumstances instead of penalizing the petty employees like present appellant who had been wandering from pillar to post seeking his regularization first and then advantages of his initial appointment prior to the date of regularization as such had impinged upon the principles of good governance and it exhibits arbitrary approach adopted by public functionary against none else but a civil servant employed in government department and carrying out service to the utter satisfaction of the authorities but deprived of service benefits in complete disregard of the applicable law on the subject. In similar circumstances and on almost same subject Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore in a case reported as 2014 PLC (CS) 1068 has also thrashed the law on this subject and graciously held as under .:- "(c) Civil Service ---Contract appointment---Regularization of service---Scope--- Regularization in service was not an initial recruitment but the confirmation of an existing employment."
12. For what has been discussed above, instant appeal is accepted as prayed for and the order dated 18.05.201 1, letters dated 04.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 are declared to be of no legal effect and the appellant would be deemed to have been regularized from the date of his initial appointment i,e, 21.07.1989 and he would be granted all service back benefits from the date of his initial appointment in accordance with law .