MUHAMMAD YAR WALLANA, MEMBER-I.--- By this common judgment, the Service Appeals bearing Nos. 1788 & 1795 to 1798 of 2013 involving similar question and requiring determination of ratio for promotion amongst two service cadres i.e. ex-PCS and ex-PSS are to be decided in the backdrop of post remand points of consideration for this Tribunal in the light of the order of Hon'ble apex court in CAs Nos. 881 to 885 of 2014.
2. Government of the Punjab, Services & General Administration Department notified the Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004 replacing ex-PCS and ex-PSS vide Notification No SOR- III(S&GAD)1-12/2000 dated 17.01.2004, wherein after Rule 5 a proviso clause had protected incumbents of ex-PCS and ex-PSS in different grades to be governed by existing arrangements/policies or any other policy/ instructions to be issued from time to time and an amendment was introduced in the said rules vide Notification No. SORIII(S&GAD)1-12/2000 dated 02.12.2004 to the following effect:--- "Provided that the existing incumbents of the ex-PCS and ex-PSS in different grades shall stand inducted in the PMS in their respective grades.
Provided further that their inter-se-seniority in respective cadres of ex-PCS and ex-PSS shall continue to be maintained separately and they shall continue to be, governed under. the existing arrangements regarding sharing of posts in different grades according to the ratio of ex-PCS and ex-PCS respectively."
Some members of ex-PSS feeling aggrieved from the ratio of 7:3 for ex-PCS and ex-PSS officers respectively in different grades while maintaining their seniority, lists separately agitated through the representation before the Chief Secretary, Govt. of the Punjab, Lahore who after constituting a broad based committee for thrashing out the respective issues and on receiving an equally divided report of the committee declined the representation vide order bearing No: SO(Admn-11)8- 1 dated 28.03.2013, which was impugned through these service appeals, wherein initially This Tribunal had set aside the said order of the Chief Secretary; Govt. of the Punjab, but had remanded this matter to him for introduction. of requisite amendment in the disputed portion of the rules, which judgment of this Tribunal had been set aside by the Hon'ble apex court with the direction to this Tribunal to examine vires of the rules viz-a-viz raison detre behind the aforesaid ratio introduced in the amended portion of the rules and it would be advantageous to reproduce the operative part of the judgment of the Hon'ble apex court. Paragraphs Nos.7, 8 & 9 are re-produced hereunder verbatim:--- "7.What is the raison detre for the ratio of promotion amongst PCS and PSS cadres as reflected in the rules has not been happily dealt with in the order of the Chief Secretary. Nor has it been dealt with in the judgment of the Service Tribunal. The former could not have dealt with it as it was not its domain in view of the judgment rendered in "I.A. Sharwani and others. Vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others" (supra). But why did the Service Tribunal shrug off its responsibility by sending the case to the departmental authority is not understandable, when it, as a matter of law and course, is the domain of the Service Tribunal.
It thus should have examined the vires of the rules viza-viz the raison detre for the ratio, by probing into the relevant record, instead of sending the case to the departmental authority.
Remand of the case ,to the departmental authority thus appears to be unwarranted.
8. The argument about acceptance, acquiescence and estoppels has not impressed us when none of these terms can hold the field where the vires of a statue is at issue.
9. For the reason's discussed above, we allow' these appeals, set aside the impugned judgments and send the cases back to the Service Tribunal for decision afresh by attending to the points highlighted above."
3. The grounds taken up in the service appeals and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are interalia to the effect that the high powered committee was constituted by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of the Punjab for elucidation, consideration of issues and .submission of appropriate report on the vital questions of respective ratios in different grades amongst the two rival claimants service groups and that the Chief Secretary acted unlawfully as he had to make recommendations after obtaining report alongwith his own opinion to the competent authority i.e. Chief Minister Punjab but he declined the representation and thereby brushed the claim of the appellants without due consideration after attending all aspects; that the committee was equally divided and the convener as well as the Secretary Regulations had given their input in the report on the basis of very cogent reasoning which had been ignored materially by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of the Punjab and that infact a Punchait was convened wherein two ex-Presidents of two service groups associations had given their consents unlawfully, whereas they had retired well before these deliberations and had no authority for putting forth their own point of view in respect of lawful claim of the members of the representationist group. It was also argued and so claimed as ground in appeal that the ratio of 7:3 was not justified as the departmental authorities should have considered factor of prime importance of sanctioned strength of each group and that on the basis thereof ratio of 6:4 was just and appropriate and it has also backing of the instructions contained in S&GAD's letter No. SOR-II(S&GAD)2- 54/76 dated 25.09.1980 and that percentage of sanctioned strength of both service cadres was 51:49 respectively for ex-PCS and ex-PSS cadres and that the departmental authorities deliberately avoided to discharge their responsibility and instead of adopting fair, just and impartial ,methodology for working out of respective strength and consequent appropriate ratio for holding onward slots in different grades by these two groups declined-the representations, which order dated 28.03.2013 be declared unlawful, illegal and devoid of merit and that impugned ratio of 7:3 in Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules be revised in accordance with worked out ratio of 51:49 for ex-PCS and ex-PSS cadres respectively alongwith any other relief deemed appropriate.
4. The respondents have contested these appeals on legal as well as factual grounds wherein they have taken up plea of time bar estoppel and acquiescence and on facts have controverted the averments contained in the appeal and the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that at the time of promulgation of Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004 three different service rules were applicable for holding a post in different grades by these two groups, which rules are re-produced hereunder; i) The West Pakistan Civil Service Executive Branch Rules, 1964. ii) The West Pakistan Secretariat (S.O) Rules 1962. iii) The Deputy Secretary Recruitment Rules, 1963. and that Rule 5 of Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004 had repealed these rules. The respondents also took up plea of previous practices in vogue, wherein ex-PCS and ex-PSS had been sharing the posts in different grades from BS-18 to BS-21 in the ratio of 2:1 respectively and that on the basis of sanctioned strength and other, consideration of departmental needs the ratio of 7:3 was worked out, agreed and consented to by the ex-Presidents of ex-PCS Officers Welfare Association and ex-PSS Officers Welfare Association and that the authority had got introduced the amendment impugned hereunder in proviso clause of Rule 5 of the Rules ibid considering the same as just and fair which had been properly catering for the equitable promotional channel for both the service cadres and that the appeals in hand have no force, which merit dismissal.
5. Mian Inam-ul-Haq, Advocate. learned counsel representing the appellants in Service Appeals No.1788 & 1795 to 1797 of 2013 and Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid, Advocate representing the appellant in Service Appeal No.1798 of 2013 mainly argued on the basis of rationale behind the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Wasim Warsi's case PLD 1990 SC 851 that formula for respective share of two service cadres was to be worked out on the basis of sanctioned strength of each cadre and for augmenting their arguments they referred to different letters and notifications existing alongwith service appeals and on the basis thereof they were of the view that the fixed quota of 25% for APUG and DMG officers was to be deducted from the sanctioned strength of ex-PCS Officers and that when the sane is deducted, the ratio which emerged from available sanctioned strength of two groups comes to 51:49 respectively for both groups. While relying upon 1984 PLC (CS) 247 and 1997 PLC (CS) 01 they were of the view that it was mandatory for the department to take corrective steps for amending the ratio in the rules on the basis of aforesaid formula and not on the basis of willful discrimination meted out to the appellants. They also referred to policy instructions contained in S&GAD's letter. They strongly took exception of the unlawful role played by ex-Presidents of two associations and referred to the committee report wherein this fact finds mention. They summed up their arguments while praying for acceptance of the appeals and amendment to be introduced in the rules accordingly.
6. On the other hand Mr. Mahmood Tahir Ch, Advocate, representing respondents Nos. 46, 52, 55, 98, 140, 258, 317, 331 to 345, Rana Abdul Jabbar Khan, Advocate for respondent No. 9 and Malik Saleem lqbal Awan, Advocate for respondents Nos. 67 & 199 maintained that rule making authority vests in the executive organ of the State and the very concept of trichotmy of the powers would stand materially infringed in case the rules are amended or vires thereof are examined in the way which materially affects the exercise of right of rule making by the executive organ of the State. As regards the sanctioned strength they were of the view that 25% share of APUG in field posts had to be deducted from the overall strength of PMS as depicted from different letters available on record and that 20% seats are of technical side working as Section Officers and Under Secretaries and that when these two facts are considered for working out sanctioned strength of two: service cadres, the ratio mutually agreed by the ex-Presidents of the Associations as 7:3 appears just and appropriate as the rules have to cater, for the public interest, which did lie in adopting the balanced approach towards matters of promotions of two ..groups than giving undue . advantage to the members of ex-PSS in term of their promotions to higher grades. They also placed on record a self prepared data in order to show that the members of ex-PCS group were being promoted earlier in point of time than the ex-PSS officers, hence any change in the existing ratio of 7:3 would put the members of ex-PCS officers in a very disadvantageous position which would affect their efficiency and zeal for performance of duties which is against public interest and should be taken note by this Tribunal. They relied upon PLD 1987 SC 172, PLD .1989 SC 262, 2005 SCM R 100, 2005 SCM R 499, 2006 SCM R 1240, 2011 SCM R 1075, 2011 SCM R 1864, PLD 2013 SC 829, PLD 2014 SC 858, 2014 SCM R 1539, 2015 SCM R 269, PLD 2016 SC 872 and 2017 SCM R 206.
C.M.No.430/2015
7. Mr. Mahmood Tahir Ch; learned counsel for respondents No. 46, 52, 55. 98, 140, 258, 317, 331 to 345 in the main appeal/applicants also referred to the C.M application No.430/2015 during the final arguments and had maintained that all requisite record as mentioned in C.M application No. 430/2015 has not been produced. This Tribunal on 15.07.2015 and 07.10.2015 had directed the respondent department to place on record the entire record mentioned in C.M application bearing No. 430/2015 and in response thereto the respondents had brought on record the requisite material and record mentioned in C.M application at serial No. 7(1) to 7(VIII), whereas the learned District Attorney for the respondent had maintained that rest of the record mentioned at serial No. 7(IX) to 7(XII) was not available and in response to this argument the learned counsel of the applicants Mr. Mahmood Tahir Ch. Had been unable to satisfy this Tribunal about availability of the said record and non production of the same, hence as it is settled law that a party who claims that any document or material is not available with it, cannot be forced to bring on record any such record and on the contrary the applicant is entitled to -place on record any proof as secondary evidence of the same, which has not been placed on record by the present application Therefore, as the relevant and necessary documents have been placed on record by the answering respondent, this C.M application is accordingly disposed of.
C.M. Nos. 129/2018 and 130/2018
8. In these two C.M applications bearing Nos. 129/2018 and 130/2018 the applicants had raised objections with regard to correctness of the report submitted by Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore, the reply whereof had been sought from the respondents whose counsel had submitted that he would address arguments, if necessary, instead of filing reply. Since, these two C.M applications were fixed for arguments alongwith final arguments on the main appeals, the learned counsel for, the objection petitioners has addressed his arguments mainly on the service appeals and infact the grounds taken up in the C.M applications being part of the main service appeal have been indirectly argued on, the basis of grounds taken.in the main service appeal, therefore, these C.M applications are to be decided alongwith main service appeal after hearing of final arguments.
9. We have considered grounds taken up as objection in these C.M applications and find that the report of the Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore has been attacked mainly on the ground that no reference has been made to the relevant record in order to support the reasons maintained in this report. The report of Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore is not the sole material to be relied upon by this Tribunal for determining the ratio or examining the vires of the rules containing ratio of 7:3 respectively for two dying cadres and in the final judgment this Tribunal has given weight age to the documents and the record, which was of undisputed nature, hence, the report of the Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore attacked in these objection petitions is not taken as a sole decisive factor.
Therefore, these objections have no force and the objection petitions are accordingly dismissed.
10. We have anxiously considered arguments advanced at the bar and by their able assistance have gone through the entire record available and made available to this Tribunal and we are unanimously of the following view on the question requiring determination in these appeals:---
(i) So far as the question of jurisdiction of this Tribunal for examination of vires of the rules i.e. Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004 prescribing two provisos attacked in present appeals, the arguments advanced by Mr. Mahmood Tahir Ch., learned counsel representing respondents No. 46, 52, 55, 98, 140, 258, 317, 331 to 345 and adopted by another learned counsel appear to have lost sight of the operative paragraph of the judgment of the Hon 'ble apex court in CAS Nos. 881 to 885 of 2014 remanding the matter to this Tribunal for examining the vires of the Rules i.e. Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004 with particular reference to the raison detre behind this ratio and after an authoritative pronouncement on this subject this objection as well as the objection with regard to acceptance of the ratio of 7:3 introduced in the amended rules, acquiescence and estoppels were not available to the respondents as these arguments had been advanced before the Hon'ble apex court which had not found favour, hence these questions cannot be re-agitated even in post remand proceedings in these appeals.
(ii) Second the jurisdiction of this Tribunal for the purposes of examining the vires of the rules on different established considerations has been very well settled in PLD 1961 SC 105, lqan Ahmed Khurram's case PLD 1980 SC 153, IA Sharwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041, Abdul Samad's case 2002 SCMR 71, Engineer Naraindas's case 2002 SCMR 82, Muhammad Zafar Bhatti's case 2004 PLC (CS)
881, Mrs. Farklumda Talat's case 2007 SCMR 886 and Khan Toti's case 2016 SCMR 1206 provided the rules offend against the following principles of law enshrined under different illustrious judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court:-
(a) The rules are violative of the basic provisions of the enactment where under the delegated legislative authority has been exercised by the Government.
(b) The rules are violating or abridging the fundamental right enshrined under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
(c) The rule making authority has no power under any enabling provision of the enactment to make such rules.
(d) The rules are discriminatory, unreasonable and had an arbitrary approach instead of having even handed approach wherefor these were promulgated.
11. The pivotal question requiring keen consideration of the Tribunal is as to what are the factors and the aspects which should have been kept under consideration by the rule making authority at the time when amendment in Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004 was introduced on 02.12.2004. In this regard the learned counsel for both the parties in their respective arguments while maintaining their own point of view had been somehow giving more importance to the sanctioned strength a each cadre as a governing consideration for the purposes of fixation of ratio for promotion to higher grade from the members of ex-PCS and ex-PSS cadres. We also noticed during hearing of these appeals that the learned counsel for the parties had their own divergent views for working out of cadre strength and also the consideration of provision of facility of field posts to members of ex-PSS as also one of the grounds for working out of formula for the said ratio.
Apart from these two aspects-to our mind-for fixation of ratio to higher grade where more than one cadre are eligible, the fitness of one cadre on the basis of proficiency or higher qualification and skill may also be one of the grounds but the same is not available in present case as the ex- PCS and ex-PSS officers had been previously serving their entire service tenure in their respective cadres but for different reasons merger of two service groups into Punjab Provincial Management Service took place.
The members of both service cadres had at least accepted the merger of two service groups in a combined service in the name of Punjab. Provincial Management Service and it is why in larger public interest the authorities have replaced these two cadres which are dying cadres and had raised Punjab Provincial Management Service for better future prospects of the members of two service cadres and also for serving the public interest in an amicable and congenial atmosphere and when the members of both the cadres had been inducted in Punjab Provincial Management Service, no service cadre amongst these two can claim superiority over the other in terms of skill, proficiency and qualifications. Hence, the sole ground making the basis of the ratio is the sanctioned cadre strength of each of these two service cadres right at the time of promulgation of Punjab Provincial Management Service. Rules, 2004. For this end and for better clarity of respective position of both the service cadres this Tribunal had passed an order on 05.07.2017 and required the Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore and Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Services & General Administration Department, Lahore to submit their special reports depicting respective cadre strength of ex-PCS and ex-PSS at the time of promulgation of Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, which has been provided whereunder letter No. SO(Admn.II)8-50/2004 dated 30.03.2004 and order No. SO. ADMN-II/8-50/2004 dated 27.08.2005 has been endorsed wherein at the relevant point of time total strength of Provincial Management Service was 1204, whereas 530 seats were of field posts and 330 seats were of Section Officers. The learned counsel for both the parties had their own point, of view as reproduced above with regard to deduction of share of APUG and also deduction of share of technical seats of SOs and USs. We have been very mindful of these arguments advanced on both sides as to what should have been a just and fair consideration for the purposes of deduction of APUG seats as well as seats of technical posts working as SOs. In this regard it may be very conveniently observed that the members of APUG belong to a different service cadre raised tinder Federal Government and similarly technical posts the share whereof is 20% against total posts of Section Officers and Under Secretaries the officers holding these posts belong to different other service/occupational groups whose terms and conditions of service are different but under different arrangements their share has been recognized against the post similar to tine members of these two groups. Therefore, the same approach of deduction has to be evenly applied as the seats reserved for technical posts as well as for APUG cannot be considered to be exclusively meant for members of ex-PCS and ex-PSS, hence both these service cadres cannot legitimately claim that these seats be counted as their cadre strength for the purpose of working out of cadre strength and fixation of ratio accordingly.
Therefore, 72 seats of APUG deserve to be deducted from the field posts which were being shared by ex-PCS officers and APUG and similarly while working out actual cadre strength of Section Officers 20% seats of Section Officers/Under Secretaries are to be deducted from the posts of ex- PSS. As the letter No. SO(Admn.11)8-50/2004 dated 30.03.2004 and order No. SOADMN-II/8-50/2004 dated 27.08.2005 are undisputed documents with respect to cadre strength of both the service cadres, hence the strength of two service cadres and share percentage at the time of promulgation of Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules are given below on the basis of aforesaid public documents:--- i)Total field posts are 530-72 APUG458 Ex-PCS ii)Total Strength of S.Os/U.Ss 330-66 seats of Technical Posts264 Ex-PSS iii)Total of two cadres 722 iv)Ex-PCS 458/722 = 63.4 round off to 63% Ex-PSS 264/722 = 36.6 round off to 37%
12. Since, the cadre strength was the determining factor for fixation of ratio and the same had been ignored in the impugned order dated 28.03.2013 as well as in the rules amended through Notification No. SOR-III(S&GAD) 1-12/2000 dated 02.12.2004, hence these had definitely flouted the principle of fair play, just and equitable approach in promulgation of Rules and thereby undue discrimination to ex-PSS group had taken place for which neither any justification exists nor the same can be put forth alongwith any other valid ground for introduction of the ratio in, the impugned rules. The principle of legitimate expectancy for promotion to higher post is a recognized right of every civil servant and when two service cadres had been merged and one unified service in the name of Punjab Provincial Management Service had been raised, the same spirit of equal treatment of the equals and just and fair treatment of every individual as well as a civil servant should have reigned the realm while exercising the delegated legislative authority in order to promote the spirit of basic enactment which having been violated through Notification No. SOR- III(S&GAD) 1-12/2000 dated 02.12.2004 of amendment in the Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, the same is violative of the principles of due process of law, equal treatment of two equally placed groups of civil servants, hence, the same does not qualify the test of equal treatment of equals.
13. It seems imperative to address to the argument of Mr. Mahmood Tahir Ch., Advocate for respondents No 45, 52, 55, 98, 140, 258, 317 and 331 to 345 that in case the ratio provided under the rules was found to be excessive or unsustainable, the decrease of the ratio with respect to ex-PCS officers would resultantly take away from them the higher grades and on this ground he was of the view that this ratio should be maintained. We find absolutely no force in this argument because the ratio of promotion of the two service cadres would be applicable from Grade-18 and above and whatever the appropriate ratio is determined by this Tribunal, the same would have effect respectively for each group and if the senior members of ex-PCS cadre were to retire earlier, the juniors to them would occupy their place and this service cadre as a whole would not be ultimately at disadvantage by change of ratio but definitely the change of ratio has to be based upon just and equitable principle for calculation and other relevant principles, which have been applied by this Tribunal in above paragraphs, hence, this argument is repelled.
14. These appeals had also been argued on the basis of violation of due process clause of Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as despite making representation, the Chief Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab firstly constituted a committee and thereafter proceeded to reject the representation instead of making of his own opinion as part of the proceedings and forwarding this matter to the competent authority. The respective arguments of both sides have already been discussed on this point of law as well and the same are not repeated. The impugned order of Chief Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab dated 28.03.2013 when read with the report of a high powered committee under the convenership of Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Law & Parliamentary Affairs Department would disclose that the committee was evenly divided in its opinion as members of the committee Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, (Services) S&GAD and Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Social Welfare Department had opined with respect to respective ratio of both the contending service cadres, whereas, Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Law & Parliamentary Affairs Department (Convener) and Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, (Regulations), S&GAD were of the opinion that this ratio must come to 6:4 for ex-PCS and ex-PSS cadres respectively. The report of the committee also carries mention that for gaining requisite information and material this committee had basically depended upon a so called consent of the ex-Presidents regarding, the alleged ratio of 7:3. Both these ex-Presidents of the two associations representing the service cadres had retired prior to these deliberations: The notifications of their retirements on 11.12.2002 and on 29.04.2004 exist on record, which have not been disputed during the course of these proceedings. None of the parties even put forth the consent of the associations of two respective service cadres to show that these ex-Presidents had any lawful role for representing their service cadres particularly when they had earlier retired. The genesis of the impugned order of the Chief Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab dated 28.03.2013 and the promulgation of impugned proviso of Rule 5 of the Rules ibid was the so called consensus of the two presidents and when they had no legal authority to represent their respective service cadres, the mode and the method of determining crucial issue of ratio was very much offensive qua the common principles applicable in such matters if not the law as the rules were not providing any explicit provision for calculation of the ratio although the instructive letter No. SO(Admn.II)8-50/2004 dated 30.03.2004 and order No. SO.ADMN-H/8-50/2004 dated 27.08.2005 having the force of law were yet applicable and in this sense the law for calculation of ratio was also violated.
15. The other point of argument concerning the issue of violation of due process clause is that of non association of any serving member or representative of the two cadres for obtaining due input in the matter. The impugned order as well as the report of the inquiry committee show that members of both the groups had not been able to put forth their respective contentions before the committee in one way or the other. In this backdrop we can very certainly observe that consideration of all aspects necessary for proper deliberations and resultant report had not remained the focus of administrative authority while introducing the impugned proviso containing ratio of 7:3 in the rules ibid. The sole reliance upon consensus of the ex-Presidents was of no legal strength and in such crucial matters affecting hundreds of civil servants of main stream service cadres of the province, the highest executive authority of the province was under more legal obligation to have exhibited due caution, restraint and must have observed very faithfully the true principles of just and fair approach so that none of these two service cadres could have a valid cause of grievance. We are constrained to observe that such a course was absolutely not adopted which resulted in giving rise to this litigation and discontentment in the members of the aggrieved service cadre. Therefore, we hold that the due process clause of Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was definitely violated in present case while introducing the ratio of 7:3 in the rules for the two contenders.
16. Resultantly, the instant appeals bearing Nos. 1788 of 2013 and 1795 to 1798 of 2013 are accepted.
The impugned order dated 28.03.2013 and the amendment in the Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004 to the extent it introduced ratio of 7:3 for ex-PCS and ex-PSS respectively is declared to be ultravires to the constitutional provisions of equality and due process clause under Articles 25 and 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the same would be struck down from the rules by the rule making authority who would introduce the ratio in the rules in accordance with the respective cadre strength of these two groups, which comes to 63% for ex- PCS officers and 37% for ex-PSS officers for different upward grades from BS-18 to BS-21. The process of amendment in Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004 would be concluded within a period of three months of receipt of this judgment. Office is directed to send copy of this judgment under Rule 21 of Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1975.