A. O. RAZIUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).-The Appellant was recruited on 21st December, 1949 as a direct Deputy Superintendent of Police on the basis of the recommendations of Joint Punjab and N.-W. F.
P. Public service Commissions. On 11th March, 1954 he was promoted to officiate as Superintendent of Police. Subsequently, having qualified in the lateral entry examination, he was inducted into the Secretariat Group on 21 April, 1976 and placed in Grade 20. In this capacity, he is at present working as Director-General, Bureau of Police Research and Develop--ment, under the Ministry of Interior since 12th December, 1977. Although he post which he is holding is meant for a Grade 21 officer, he retains his own grade i.e. Grade 20. He has, however, not been confirmed in the Secretariat Group. On 28th August, 1980 the Establishment Division published a provisional Gradation List of A.P.U.G. Officers of the Police Trade 18 to Grade 22 and circulated it for fling of objections, if any, order that the final Gradation List may be issued after considering the objections.
This list did not include the name of the Appellant, who on 27th September, 1980, made a representation to the Establishment Secretary pointing out the omission and requesting that his seniority may be fixed tom the date of continuous officiation as Superintendent of Police (Grade 18), namely, 11th March, 1954. Not having received any response from the Establishment Secretary, the Appellant, after waiting for the statutory period of 90 days, came up in appeal before the Tribunal on 25th January, 1981 praying that a direction be issued to the Respondent to include him in the seniority list and to place hint directly below Kh. Masroor Hussain, who is at No. 2 of Gradation List of the Police Group in Grade 21.
2. The parties were heard on 1st September, 1982 and the appeal is being disposed of by this order.st
3. The case of the Appellant is that, sine he was promoted as superintendent of Police on 11th March, 1954 he would count his seniority a the grade of Superintendent of Police (Grade 18) with effect front that into, in accordance with the rule on the subject. In this way, lie has not only claimed that his seniority as Superintendent of Police be recognised, with effect from the date he was promoted as officiating Superintendent of Police, but that by virtue of that seniority, he should also be placed in grade 21 of the Police Group, although he is actually not employed in he Police Group but stands transferred to the Secretariat Group. The respondent's stand with regard to the claim of the Appellant is that, laving been appointed as a result of the lateral entry examination to the secretariat Group in Grade 20, he cannot claim promotion in the Police Group by virtue of his original seniority in that Group. Being a member of the Secretariat Group, he will count his seniority in the Secretariat group with effect from the date of his appointment in that Group, respective of the date on which he was appointed as a Superintendent of Police. It is also the contention of the Respondent that, so far as he Police Group is concerned, he can be retained in the Police Group till such time as he is confirmed in the Secretariat Group but only in Grade 18 and not Grade 20 and he would not be considered for promotion in the Police Group as an officer of Grade 20. Thus, the Respondent has, while conceding the claim of the Appellant to be included in the Gradation List of the Police Group, rejected his claim to be shown in Grade 21. Although the original complaint of the Appellant was that his name was not all included in the Gradation List of the Police Group, the Respondent has conceded, after this appeal was filed, in a letter issued on 18th May, 1981 in response to the Appellant's representation in this behalf, that it had been decided that his name would continue to be shown in Grade 18 of the Police Group, where he was confirmed with effect from 24th November, 1962.
4. After hearing both the parties in detail and perusing the docu--ments produced by them, we have come to the conclusion that the Appellant has no case for being shown in the list of Grade 21 officers of the Police Group. At present, he is not employed in the Police Group and is working as Grade 20 officer in the Secretariat Group. Obviously, therefore, he cannot claim to be shown in the list of Grade 21 officers of the Police Group. At the time of his appointment in Grade 20 of the Secretariat Group, he was in Grade 18 of the Police Group. Therefore, it is not understood by what stretch of imagination he claims to be placed in Grade 21 of the Police Group. As admitted by the Respondent, the Appellant retains his lien in his original Group, till such time as he gets confirmed in the Secretariat Group. But, for the purpose of his promotion in the Police Group and the determination of his seniority there, he cannot be given the benefit of his present appointment, which is completely unconnected with his original appointment in the Police Group. Likewise, for promotion in his present Group, he can rely on his seniority in this Group, but not on his seniority in the Police Group, which has nothing to do with his present appointment or posting. As it is, even in his present Group, he is in Grade 20 and, really speaking, we fail to understand how he can expect to be placed in Grade 21, on the basis of the seniority claimed by him in Grade 18 of the Police Group. His claim, therefore, for being shown next to Kh. Masroor Hussain at Serial No. 2 of the Gradation List of the Police Group (Grade 21 officer) has to be rejected.
5. It is, however, observed that, while the Appellant claims that he was promoted as Superintendent of Police on 11th March, 1954, and should, therefore, be accorded seniority with effect from that date, the Respondent, when categorically rejecting the claim only observed in his reply to the representation of the Appellant that: "It has been decided that his name would continue to be shown in Grade 18 of the Police Group, the post against which he was confirmed with effect from 24th November, 1962 for so long as he is not confirmed in the Secretariat Group."
This leaves the position somewhat unclear. The Gradation List, as at present, does not show the Appellant's name at all. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that his name would continue to be shown in Grade 18. Apparently, what is meant is that his name would be shown at the appropriate place is Grade 18 of the Police Group and that it would continue to be shown there till the officer gets confirmed in the Secretariat Group. On the basis of this presumption, it should be reasonable tot expect that seniority in Grade 18 will be accorded to the officer with effect, not from the date of his confirmation, but from that of hi continuous officiation in that grade. The rules are very clear on the subject and it has been clearly laid down in subsection (4) of section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 that: "Seniority in the grade to which a civil servant is promoted shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade."
This principle has also been reiterated in the foreword to the Gradation List issued by the Establishment Division on 28th August, 1980, in which it has been categorically stated that: ---This Gradation List is based on the following assumptions : .
(a) .........
(b) .........
(c) inter se seniority of the directly recruited officers and their seniority vis-a-vis provincial Police Officers has been fixed according to the existing rules/instructions, from' the, date of their regular officiation in the A.P.U.G. (Police Group) in Grade 18."
6. It would appear from the above that, if the Appellant as admitted by the Respondent, has been officiating regularly in the A.P.U.G. (Police Group) in Grade 18, with effect from 11th March, 1954 he should count his seniority from the same date. The reference to the date of his confirmation, namely 24th November, 1962 in the Establishment Division's Memo. Of 18th May, 1981 in reply to the officer's representation is not comprehensible. We are, therefore, of the view that the office should be shown in the list of Grade 18 of the Police Group and that he should be accorded seniority in that Group with effect from the date of his continuous officiation as Superintendent of Police and order accordingly.
7. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is partially allowed.
8. No order as to costs.