ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Ajmal Hussain, .Assistant, Civil Defence Directorate, Lahore, .Has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Director Civil Defence Punjab, Lahore, Assistant Director (Admin). Civil Defence Directorate, Lahore and Messrs Sayed Ahmad Mirza and Muhammad Inayat, Assistants, Civil Defence Directo--rate, Lahore, as respondents.
4. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant' has prayed that the reversion, repatriation, lien and further promotion /reversion of Syed Ahmad Mirza, respondent No. 4, be declared as illegal, vold, altra vires and inoperative. Muhammad Inayat, respondent No. 1, be declared as not a Government employee after his continuous absenpe of 7 years and not eligible for his seniority position. Appellant has also prayed that respon--dents. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be directed to restore all his service rights as given to his juniors and orders each dated 16-9-1980, 5-7-1981 and 13-9-1981, be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Directorate of Civil Defence Punjab, while implementing the judgment of this Tribunal in case of Salamat Ali, Assistant of the Civil Defence Department, issued a revised seniority list vide Civil Defence Directorate Order No. A-1/12598-617 dated 5-7-1981.
According to this seniority list, Mr. Salamat Ali has been shown at serial No. 1, Mr. Sayed Ahmad Mirza (respondent No. 4) at 'serial No. 2, Ch. Muhammad Inayat (respondent No. 5) at serial No. 3 and the appellant, Mr. Ajmal Hussain, at serial No. 4. Aggrieved against his revised seniority list which is now impugned before us, the appellant filed an appeal before the Director, Civil Defence Punjab, Lahore, who in accordance with the Home Department's instructions contained in ;heir letter No. SOCD-1 (2)/79 dated 10-9-1981, directed the appellant vide endorsement No. A-1/17320-21 dated 13-9-1981, to seek remedy before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. Hence this appeal.
4. We, have heard the parties and perused the record so produced before us. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Mr. Sayed Ahmad Mirza, respondent No. 4, at the time of transfer of Civil Defence Training School to the Federal Government was transferred alongwith other staff to the Federal Government in the year 1975 and was thus employee of the Federal Government and had no connection whatsoever with the Punjab Government. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, as respondent No. 4, was employee of the Federal Government from 1975 onward, inclusion of his name is superfluous, incorrect, against the rules and instructions of the Government of the Punjab as well as Federal Government and needed to be struck of from the seniority list. He further argued that Mr. Muhammad Inayat; respondent No. 5, remained absent for a period of 7 years and thus ceased to be a Govern--ment employee as his this absence has not been regularized so far by the competent authority. Thus, his name also be removed from the seniority list, not being a civil servant.
5. On the other hand, learned District Attorney has submitted that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are not correct. According to him respondent No. 4, Mr. Sayed Ahmad Mirza, was transferred to the Federal Government in the year 1975, as a result of transfer of Civil Defence Training School but his transfer was temporary. He could not be permanently absorbed by the Federal Government. He was a confirmed, permanent, Assistant of the Directorate of Civil Defence Punjab and kept his lien with the parent department. Subsequently he was ordered to be repatriated by the Horne Secretary, the competent authority, to his parent department vide order dated 7-1-1978. Thus, respondent No. 4, has been shown correctly and. Lawfully in the seniority list at his proper place. Learned District Attorney also submitted, as far as Mr Muhammad Inayat, respondent No. 5, is concerned, for the period so disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant, he was allowed leave for this period by the competent authority. There is no break in the service of this respondent who is still continuing very much as a Government employee. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Mr. Muhammad Inayat is not a civil servant is not in accordance with the, facts and is baseless and malicious. Learned District Attorney while concluding his arguments, has submitted that both the respondents are admittedly senior to the appellant and the appellant should have no cause of grievance for inclusion of their names in the impugned seniority list as senior to him. The same arguments were put---forth by respondents Nos. 4 and 5, as well.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also taken pains to peruse the record of this case carefully. It is clear from the record that Mr. Sayed Ahmad Mirza, respondent No 4, was transferred to the Federal Government alongwith other staff on account of transfer of Civil Defence Training School to the Federal Government. It was laid down in Letter No. 7 (100)-SOCD/72 dated 16-9-1975, of the Government of the Punjab, Home Department, that the staff transferred would be absorbed by the Federal Government on alternative jobs if found ineligible for their first posts. The staff' would continue to serve in their respective grades. There is also a letter avail--able on the record issued by the Home Department : bearing No. SOCD 7 (100);72 dated 7-1- 1978, wherein the repatriation of Sayed Ahmad Mirza to his parent Department was ordered. Para. 2 of this letter reads as below :- 'It is observed that under rule 3.14 of the C.S.R. Punjab, Vol. I, Part I, a Government servant, on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post. Syed Ahmad Mirza, Assistant, before his transfer to the Federal Civil Defence Training School, Lahore, was working in the Civil Defence Department in a substantive capacity. He has not yet been confirmed in his present post of Superintendent in the Federal Civil Defence Training School. He lien in his parent Department remains intact in accordance with this rule."
7. It is clear from para. 2. Above that respondent No. 4, Mr. Sayed Ahmad Mirza, was repatriated to his parent Department according to the rules, lawfully and with the orders of the competent authority. He ha to occupy his proper seniority position in the Department as any Assistant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 4, did not belong to the Provincial Government and had severed his relations with the Punjab Government as he stood transferred and permanently absorbed by the Federal Government, is not correct and against the facts on the record. Thus, the name of respondent No, 4, Mr. Sayed Ahmad Mirza, has correctly been shown at a proper, place in the seniority list. As far as respondent No. 5 is concerned, there is a letter bearing No. A-1-M/81-15955 dated 23-8-1981, from the Directorate of Civil Defence Punjab, Lahore, addressed to the Accountant-General Punjab, Lahore which proves that respondent No. 5 remained on leave validly sanctioned by the competent authority during the years 1971 to 1978 and was not absent from duty and thus he remained in continuous service of the Government and is very much 'Government servant till today. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant claiming that due to long absence, the respondent No. 5, Mr. Muhammad Inayat is not a Government employee, is not proved from the record and is baseless.
7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no orders as to costs.