S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).- Ch. Naimat Ullah Khan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, Lahore, Mr. S. A. Naeem, Deputy Director Labour Welfare Lahore and Mohammad Rafiq Arshad, Deputy Director Labour Welfare, as Respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that Respondent No. 1 may be instructed to place the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 junior to the appellant in the seniority list issued in the year 1979.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Labour officer on 9th June. 1967, through Public Service Commission. On 7th January, 1970, twenty four Labour Officers were promoted to the rank of Assistant Directors vide notification No. Lab (1)-34/69 and contesting respondents were amongst them. The appellant could not be promoted as he was lacking 3 years experience of service but the Government was moved by the Department to relax such condition.
Ultimately this condition was relaxed vide notification No. Lab(I)-1-49(69) dated 11th March, 1970, by the Government. Despite this relaxation the appellant could not be promoted as there was no vacancy available and only joined as Assistant Director Labour on 19th April, 1973. On the same basis i. e. 3-years experience Messrs S. A. Naeem and Mohammad Rafiqe Arshad were again promoted as Deputy Ditectors on 11th June, 1973, while the appellant was so elevated when he had completed his 3 years experience of service on 13th May, 1976. Seniority List was issued by the Administrative Department on 31st December, 1978, in which the appellant was shown junior to the respondents. This gave a cause of grievance to the appellant who made a representation against this situation. As nothing materialised in this respect the appellant has brought his grievance before this Tribunal through this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney alongwith learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The main stay of the case of the appellant is that he was shown senior in merit list prepared by the Public Service Commission, therefore, he would remain senior both as Labour Officer as well as Assistant Direc--tor Labour and would carry the same seniority with him to the rank of Deputy Director which he was now occupying. This is the only salient point of the case which has been put-forward by the learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on the settled principle of seniority as envisaged in section 7(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 read with rule 10 of the West Pakistan Labour Service (Class 1st) Rules, 1969. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments so given by the Secretary Labour and has conceded that tire appellant would be senior as Labour Officer to Mr. S. A. Naeem but would be junior to Mohammad Rafique Arshad by virtue of their regular appointment as Labour Officer. It has been further emphasized that the appellant could not maintain his seniority when he was promoted as Assistant Director Labour on the ground that at the time when the vacancies were available, it was found that his experience of service was less than 3 years. This according to the learned District Attorney and learned counsel for the respondents, -made the respondents senior to him as Assistant Directors as they were promoted on 7th January, 1970, whereas the appellant was promoted in 1973 after a period of almost 3 years. It has been further submitted that the same draw back existed at the time of promotion to the rank of Deputy Director in case of the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 were promoted much earlier than him to this rank i. e. 11th Jane, 1973, whereas the appellant was promoted on 13th May, 1976. In this way it has been submitted that -the case of the appellant suffers from an inherent defect which cannot be cured in any manner.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused the record of promotion in this case and do find lot of strength and force in the arguments so made by the learned District Attorney as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Even if it has been conceded that the appellant was senior as Labour Officer, even this seniority would be of no avail to him when he could not maintain the same as Assistant Director. If the mandatory condition of 3 years experience could not have been there, then it could have easily been concluded that the appellant would carry his seniority in the higher grade as well but the fact remains that the case of the appellant suffers from an inherent defect which deprived him of his seniority at the stage when he was to be promoted as Assistant Director as well as at the time when he bad to be raised as Deputy Director. The Government did not do any injustice in his case as they observed the rules meticulously both in favour of the appellant and in case of the respondents and gave them chance of promotion when it was found that they had qualified the test and had the experience of 3 years service at that time as provided under the rules. In this manner we are in full accord with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned District Attorney and the stand taken by the Secretary Labour in his parawise comments.
6. The result is that we do not find any strength and force in this case of the appellant as he was always ignored for a defect which was in--herent, therefore, we proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.