ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Mr. Abdul Ghafoor, Assis--tant (Retired) has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Punjab Government through Secretary Home Department, Lahore and the -Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 17th November, 1980 of respondent No.1 and that of respondent No. 2 communicated vide letter No. CE/35918 be set aside and orders already passed by respondent No. 1, vide Memo: No 15-27-SO-PRS-II-HD/76, dated 23rd October, 1976, be ordered to be implemented.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had made an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal in 1975. The Tribunal vide order dated 18th March, 1976 disposed of the appeal and referred the matter to the Secretary Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Lahore to decide the appeal in question at their level. The Home Secretary decided and asked the Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore that the appellant be given seniority from 5th March, 1951 vide his order dated 23rd October, 1976. The seniority was accordingly granted to the appellant by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore. On the grant of seniority, the appel--lant requested that he may be granted pro forma promotion with effect from 9th June, 1963 as Senior Clerk, on the plea that he would have been promoted on this date if the correct seniority had been given to him at proper time. He also made a request that arrears of pay as Senior Clerk for the period from 6th September, 1963 to 28th May, 1979 be paid to him. It was informed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore vide his letter No. OE/36918, dated 17th November, 1980 "that the matter was referred to the Government who has decided that it is not a fit case to agree to the grant of pro forma promotion or creation of any supernumerary post for Abdul Ghafoor". Hence this appeal.
4. We have beard the learned counsel for the appellant who has argued that the appellant was given due seniority by his Department hence he should have been allowed the pro forma promotion from the date from which his junior was promoted i.e. 9th June, 1963. The request of the appellant for grant of pro forma promotion was as per rules and the Finance Department should have no objection for the same, He conclu--ded and prayed that the Home Department/Finance Department be direc--ted to grant the pro forma promotion to the appellant and also pay the arrears of his pay for the period 6th September, 1963 to 23rd May, 1979. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney controverted these argu--ments by saying that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal for promotion/pro forma promotion as it does not fall under the purview of the Tribunal and the appeal should be rejected as being non- maintainable.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney and have also perused the record of the case. We are in agreement with the learned District Attorney that the due seniority has already been given by the Department to the appellant and now the matter under consideration is the grant of pro forma promotion which is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as laid down under section 4(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974. The result of this discussion is that we dismiss this appeal as "non- maintainable."
There will be no order as to costs.