' A. O. RAZIUR REHMAN(MEMBER).-The appellant, who was a substantive Engineer Supervisor, Telephones, was promoted in his own pay and grade and posted as Assistant Engineer, Phones, Mirpurkhas, by an order conveyed to him by the General Manager, Southern Telecommunication Region, Karachi, on 23rd September, 1975. Later, he was reverted as Engineer Supervisor and posted in the same Division, by an order conveyed to him by the same authority, on 18th December, 1977.
This was done in pursuance of Memo. No, DTR-Genera1/4/77. Dated 13th December 1977 under which action was to be taken for review under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, of all appointments to posts, in Grade 16 and above, made between 1st January, 1972 and 5th July, 1977.
Subsequently, an Office Memorandum was issued by the Establishment Division conveying the Cabinet decision to the effect that Grade 16 officers had been excluded from the review. In pursuance of this communication, the Director-General of Telegraph and Telephones withdrew the reversion orders passed in respect of a number of officers belonging to Grade 16 who had, previously, been reverted in accordance with the then existing orders of the Government. In view of this development, the Appellant made a number of representations to the departmental authorities for cancellation of orders reverting him from the post of Assistant Engineer to Engineer Supervisor and, in response to a telegraphic representation made by the Appellant to the Secretary, Establishment Division, the Director-General informed the Appellant, on 23rd June, 1980, that his representation had been considered but it was regretted that his reversion could not be withdrawn, as his case was not covered by the recent decision of the Government. Thereafter, another representation dated 24th June, 1980 was sent by the Appellant, which was also rejected on similar grounds by the Director-General. Against this order, rejecting his representation the Appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal on 17th August, 1980, which has been heard by us today.
2. The case of the Appellant is that he was an Engineer Supervisor in Grade It, when he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 15th September 1975. He was reverted, as a result of the review of irregular appointments under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. This reversion, according to him, should have, however, been cancelled after the Cabinet decision to exclude the cases of Grade 16 `officers from the purview of review, and therefore, the refusal of the authorities to accept his representation in this behalf cannot be justified in law and should, therefore, be set aside. The case of the Respondents. As disclosed in the statement filed by them, as well as by the arguments adduced on their behalf during the hearing, is that the Appellant was never promoted on regular basis and as such he cannot claim posting as Assistant Engineer as a matter of right. It has also been urged on behalf of the Respondents that the Appellant has not impleaded all the affected persons and, further, that his appeal is time barred, since no representation was made by the Appellant, within the prescribed period, after the order of reversion was conveyed to him on 18th December, 1977, but the departmental representation was made as late as in the, middle of 1980.
3. After hearing both the parties in detail, we are satisfied that the legal objections raised by the Respondents are without any merit. Since the Appellant has represented against the non- withdrawal of the orders of his reversion, the question of impleading other persons as parties does not arise at all. The right, which the Appellant claims to have been acquired as a consequence of the Government decision to exclude Grade 16 officers from the purview of the review proceedings, is not related to the rights or interests of any other party and has to be considered exclusively on its own. As regards the question of limitation, it is observed that, when the Government decision of 13th September, 1979 was conveyed to the department, it was incumbent on the Government to take action to implement that decision. No time-bar, for representation against non-implementation of this decision, can operate, because the operation of the Government instructions on the subject was supposed to be automatic and not subject to any representation. However it is seen that, when the reversion orders in respect of a number of other officers were withdrawn, the Appellant approached the relevant authority within a reasonable time for similar action in regard to his case and that, when his request was not acceded to, he came up before this Tribunal within the stipulated period A of 30 days from the receipt of the order rejecting his representation. In view of all this, both the legal objections raised by the Respondents fall to the ground.
4. As regards the merits of the case, it is undeniable that the Appellant was promoted between the period 1st January, 1972 and 5th July, 1977 and also that this promotion was cancelled by an order issued on 18th December, 1977. Subsequently, when Government orders were issued to the effect that cases of Grade 16 officers be excluded from the purview of proceedings under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the case of the Appellant who was holding a Grade 16 post, should also have been excluded. Since this was not done, the Appellant's grievance is quite legitimate and calls for redressal. Against this point of view, it was urged, on behalf of the Respondents, that, actually speaking, the Appellant had not been promoted to Grade 16 but that he was promoted as Assistant Engineer in his own grade and pay, implying thereby that he was not in Grade 16, but in grade 11, at the time the reversion order was passed. If this stand of the Respondents is accepted, it would automatically follow that the reversion was unjustified and uncalled for and should, therefore, be set aside.
5. We are, therefore, unable to understand how the respondents can refuse to withdraw the reversion order, when their own stand is that the officer had not been promoted to Grade 16. If he had not been promoted, the question of reversion did not arise at all:
6. Taking into consideration the Government rules and orders on the subject of review of irregular appointments made between 1st January, 1972 and 5th July, 1977, it is seen that, while originally, all irregular appointments of Grade 16 and above were to be reviewed, by a subsequent decision of the Government, appointments and promotions m Grade 16 were excluded from the scope of review. This decision was conveyed to the T & T Department by the Review Wing of the Establishment Division, under their O.M. No, 1/8/79-Rev. I, dated 13th September, 1979. In view of this decision, it was incumbent on the department to undo the action already taken in respect of such cases under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Therefore, irrespective of the question whether, the promotion of the appellant from the post of Engineer Supervisor to Assistant Engineer in 1975 was a promotion to Grade 16 or not, there can be no justification for upholding the reversion of the Appellant ordered as a result of the review proceedings.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that if, as claimed by the Respondents, the Appellant had not been promoted, the question of reversion did not arise at all, as stated above. If, however, he had been promoted to Grade 16, the review of the promotion, carried out under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, had to be cancelled in pursuance of subsequent orders of the Government on the subject. In either case, therefore, the refusal to cancel the reversion order was uncalled for and without justification.
8. In this connection, we note that, as mentioned earlier, the representations made by the Appellant against his reversion were rejected on the ground that this case was not covered by the recent decision of the Government. Neither in the written objections nor in the course of the arguments was it explained on behalf of the Respondents as to how the appellant's case was not covered by tike Cabinet decision already referred to. In case, there was any other decision of the Government which stood in the way of the withdrawal of the reversion order, it was neither referred to nor shown to us. We have, therefore, no other option but to reject the plea of the Respondents as baseless.
9. In the light of the above, the appeal is allowed and it is ordered that the Appellant be re-instated in the same post which he was holding at the time of his reversion and that this re-instatement shall have' retrospective effect from the date of the reversion.
10. No order as to costs.