' Mr. Rafique Ahmad Rana, Assistant Labour Welfare Commissioner, Rawalpindi, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, Lahore and Mr. Muhammad Arii Sukhera, Assistant Mines Labour Welfare Commissioner, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 13th December, 1980 be set aside and earlier orders dated 29th July, 1978 as well as 26th January, 1980 be restored and appeal be accepted.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant as well as the respondent both joined as Social Welfare Officers through Public Service Commission in .1964 as direct recruiters. Later on by supersession of the said notification the date of service of appellant (Rafiq Ahmad Rana) was converted to 25th January, 1961 the date he took over on ad hoc basis in the Social Welfare Department. While both the appellant and respondent were working in the Social Welfare Department they were promoted as Supervisors but the respondent was promoted earlier in that post. After some time when certain posts were reduced in the Social Welfare Department on account of dissolution of one unit both the appellant and the respondent No, 2 became surplus on 30th June, 1970. Their cases were referred to the Public Service Commission for absorption as Mines Labour Welfare Officers. After the scrutiny of their record the respondent 1. e. Muhammad Arif Sukhera was placed at No, 1 and the appellant was placed at No, 3 in the recommendations of the P. SC. Dated 19th June, 1971. Both took over on 23rd November, 1971 in their new department.
However, the appellant was older is age than the respondent on the date of said appointment.
4. The seniority list was circulated on 29th July, 1978 in which the appellant was placed senior to the respondent. Another seniority list was issued on 25th June,1979 in which the position was the same.
The respondent Mr. Arif Sukhera filed objections against the said placement of the appellant as senior to him but the same was rejected on 26th January, 1980. The respondent kept on agitating against the seniority of the appellant and ultimately succeeded when the impugned order dated 30th November, 1980 was issued. In view of this order the respondent was placed senior to the appellant. Hence this appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-respondent in person and the learned District Attorney for respondent No, I and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has read before me the judgment of Civil Service (Appellate) Tribunal dated 12th December 1972 in which both the appellants as well as the respondent were arrayed, against each other and agitated the question of their seniority before the said Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the learned Tribunal in that judgment observed that the appellant happened to be senior by virtue of his earlier regularization of his ad hoc service which he had taken up in 1961 in the Social Welfare Department. According to the learned counsel the P. S. C. Was required to take this fact into consideration while determining the orders of merit of these two opponents as the same was pointed out in the letter dated 8th January, 1969. The learned counsel has submitted that as the position was crystal clear with regard to the factor of seniority of earlier service both as laid down in the letter as well as in the judgment of the learned Tribunal therefore, it would be preposterous to presume that the respondent was placed higher in merit than the appellant by the P. S. C. According to learned counsel the order so given is nothing but numerical recitation of the names of the parties and is not to be construed as order of merit. In view of above the learned counsel has vehemently argued that order of merit was never laid down by P. S. C. At any stage and the matter is still open. He has also made grievance that despite the judgment of this learned Tribunal the P. S. C. Has not been asked by the department to settle this controversy once for all. While concluding his arguments the learned counsel has submitted that as the order of merit has not yet been settled, therefore, on the settled principle of seniority i. e. Senior in age would be senior if the induction of the parties is from the same date into service.
7. On the other hand the respondent as well as the learned D.A. Have stoutly resisted the claim of the appellant and have submitted that the order of merit has been fixed and was fixed by the Public Service Commission when the same authority recommended absorption of the appellant as well as the respondent on 16th September, 1971. According to respondent the matter stood concluded by the Public Service Commission once for all. It has been further submitted that when advice of the Commission was sought by fowarding the judgment of the Tribunal for consideration, it reiterated its earlier stand after taking into consideration all aspects of the said case, so discussed by the Tribunal. It was only on the guidelines of the Commission that the department of Social Welfare informed the Department of Labour. Welfare that the respondent would be senior to the appellant as the Public. Service Commission had already given him higher order of merit than the appellant The learned D.A. Has submitted that it would be fanciful to say that the position given to the respondent by the P. S. C. Was a numerical and not on merits. He has further elaborated this argument by submitting that the P. S. C. Had very good reasons to place the respondent higher in order of merit as it was on the record of the respondent that stood promoted earlier to the appellant as Supervisor in the Social Welfare Department, therefore, this factual position weighed with the P. S. C. And they correctly placed him higher than the appellant. In this way the learned D.A.
Has urged that the case of the respondent stood fully protected and it cannot be concluded that the P. S. C. Has failed to determine the order of merits of the parties. According to him the P. S. C.
Had once again reiterated what it did earlier by notification dated 19th March, 1963 With regard to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that if it is to be assumed that the P. S. C.
Had given the respondent a higher position then it was for the respondent to show that the same was so stated by P. S. C. In an unambiguous language, the learned D.A. Has argued that this was not necessary as the P. S. C. Was not bound under any rules to say so in so many words that the respondent had been placed higher in order of merits, as the numerical order would be sufficient to indicate the same.
8. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that the case of the appellant as well as of the respondent was duly taken into consideration by the Public Service Commission on 16th September, 1971 and when the judgment of the Tribunal was sent to the Public Service Commission, it struck to its earlier opinion after taking all the pros and cons of the case into consideration. In this I am impressed by the arguments of the learned District Attorney that the seniority so fixed by the Punjab Public Service Commission was on merits and position given to the appellant in no manner can be considered more numerical. This argument is further supported by the fact on the record, that the respondent stood promoted earlier in the Social Welfare Department and that was the reason which weighed with the P. S. C. When it decided to place the respondent higher than the appellant. I am also in accord with the learned District Attorney that the method of pronouncement of seniority by the Public Service Commission, was fully in consonance with the practice of the said Commission and it was neither necessary nor obligatory on the Commission to spell out their opinion in any other manner than the one, so adopted by it. Even if, I accept that the appellant was senior in age than the respondent, still this argument will not be of any avail to him, as I cannot intrude into the authority which his solely vested in the Public Service Commission for fixing the seniority of the persons so recommended by it and this Tribunal is under obligation to accept the same. Similarly the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the Commission was under obligation to keep in view the earlier service of the appellant on ad hoc basis, is untenable for the reasons that all the matter pertained to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission and the said body is sole Judge of the merits of the persons so recommended by them. In the present case, I have no hesitation to hold that the P. S. C. Judged the case from all angles and then came to positive conclusion while fixing inter se seniority of the appellant as well as respondent.
9. In the light of the discussion so made by me and the arguments advanced by the learned District Attorney in respect of the decision of the Punjab Public Service Commission, I have no reason to interfere with the same and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits.
However, there will be no order as to costs.