S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Messrs Abdul Wahab Khan and Ch. Abdul Waheed, have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded Govern--ment of the Punjab, through Chief Secretary, Secretary to Government of the Punjab Labour Department and Messrs Rafiq Arshad, Faiz Muhammad and S. A. Naeem as Respondents. However the name of Ijaz Ahmad Khan also figured as Respondent in the case of Ch. Abdul Waheed.
2. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that the impugned seniority list as it stood on 31st December, 1978 be set aside and the appel--lants be declared senior to contesting Respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Abdul Wahab Khan joined as Labour Officer on regular basis were. f. 11th February, 1965 in the Labour Department while Respondent No. 3 in his case joined as such on 27th April, 1965, Respondent No. 4 on 30th October. 1965 and Respondent No. 5 on 24th December, 1968. In the case of Abdul Waheed he was appointed as Labour Officer on 18th August, 1962, on regular basis while Respondent No. 3 on 8th April, 1963, Respondent No. 4 on 27th April, 1965 and Respondent No. 5 on 30th October, 1965 and Respondent Ijaz Ahmad Khan on 24th December, 1968.
Both the appellants in these cases were promoted to the rank of Assistant Directors on 17th June, 1974 and 19th April, 1973, respectively. Subsequently both the appellants were promoted as Deputy Directors on 13th May, 1976, while Respondents in both the cases had been promoted earlier on 11th June, 1973. It may be mentioned here that the case of appellant Abdul Wahab Khan could not be materialised as he was facing trial in a corruption case and the case of Mr. Abdul Waheed was ignored for having adverse entries and censure in his A. C. R. However, when both of them stood exonerated, they were given proforma promotion as Assistant Director on 7th January, 1970, vide order dated 18th July, 1975. Respondent No. 2 circulated a provisional seniority list of the officers of the Directorate of Labour Welfare Punjab as stood on 31st December, 1978, in which the appellants were shown junior to their contesting Respandents. Accordingly the appellants raised objections in the form of representations/petitions in order to challenge the seniority assigned to their contesting Respondents but the same was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 31st July, 1979. Hence these appeals.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the Respondents learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that in accordance with rule 10 of the West Pakistan Labour Welfare Service (Class I) Rules, 1969, Explanation I read with section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the appellants were entitled to carry their seniority in lower grade to the higher grade even though their juniors had been inducted in the higher grade earlier than the appellants. It has been argued that both the impediments in the way of the appellants were ultimately removed, therefore, they were entitled to proforma promotion in the rank of Deputy Directors also. It has further been urged that this settled principle of seniority as mentioned above, would also govern the principle of pro forma promotion, which has been denied to the appellants is a most arbitrary manner.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned District Attorney have submitted that the case of the appellant was duly considered for pro forma promotion in the rank of Deputy Directors but the same was rejected after full consideration by the Government vide is letter dated 4th March, 1979. According to learned counsel for the Respondents the Government was within its competency to confer or reject the request of pro forma promotion and this Tribunal would not be permitted to interfere with the same as this was the prerogative of the Government wherein the Tribunal has been forbidden to interfere in the domain. It has been further argued that despite this legal situation this Government had rightly rejected the claim of the appellants as they lacked 3 years experience of service as Assistant Directors of Labour at the time when their case was considered for promotion. With regard to the claim of the Appellants that their seniority would be governed by rule 10 of the West Pakistan Labour Welfare Service (Class I) Rules, 1969, it was submitted that the same would not be applicable in their case as the relevant rules would be section 7 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and rule 8 (1) (b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The emphasis were laid that explanation I of the aforesaid rule laid down that if a person is promoted from lower grade to a higher grade on ad hoc basis, in public interest, even though continuing later permanently in the higher grade, it would not adversely affect the interest of his seniors in the fixation of his seniority in the higher grade.
Learned counsel for the Respondents have submitted that this rule would have its impact if it would have found that M/s. Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Rafiq Arshad, Faiz Muhammad and S.A. Naeem, were: promoted on ad hoc basis, but the fact of the matter is that they were promoted as Deputy Director on 11th June, 1973, on regular basis on the recommenda--tions of the Public Service Commission.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by both the parties and are of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Respondents as well as by the learned District Attorney is weighty as well as forceful. Undeniably the appellants were senior to the Respondents as Labour Officers but they have been definitely promoted latter than the Respondents as Assistant Directors Labour because that they did not fulfil the requisite qualifications for promotion to the higher rank. Moreover the history of the case reveals that when the Respondents were promoted to the rank, the appellants were still working as Labour Officer and had not yet risen to the next ladder of their promotion. It was only in the year 1975, that they were given pro forma promotion retrospectively in the rank of Assistant Directors Labour when the Respondents had already put in 2 years services as such. In view of the above it would not be possible to equate them with the Respondents in their claim of seniority when we have fully satisfied ourselves that the appellants did not have a smooth sailing in service and lagged behind at the relevant time of promotion all along and that they were able to secure the same after waiting over five long years. We have also assessed the strength of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondents with regard to the nature of appointments of their clients and find that the same is based on solid grounds. 1f the appointments of the Respondents to the rank of Deputy Directors - would have been ad hoc in nature we may have found some force in the plea of the appellants but the record of this case has established that the promotion in the rank of Deputy Director of the Respondents in this case were made on regular basis on the recommendations of the Promotion Committee. In this manner the Respondents would not be affected by Explanation to rule 8 (1) (b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. Moreover all the respondents in this case fulfil the conditions laid down under rule 6 (2) (b) of the West Pakistan Labour Welfare Service (Class I) Rules, 1969, which require that a person would only be eligible for such promotion if he possesses required experience of 3 years service, as Assistant Director before being promoted as Deputy Director.
8. We are also conscious of the fact that the case of the appellants was duly considered by the Government and the same has been rejected, therefore, even if we would have considered the case of the appellant as feasible one, we would not be in a position to recommend to Govern-- ment to reconsider its decision in view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondents as well as learned District Attorney that this sort of direction, after the case stood rejected, would be beyond the sphere of this Tribunal.
9. In view of the above detailed analysis of the case on facts as well as on legal plane, we proceed to dismiss these appeals as being without any merits. However there will be no order as to costs.