MR. JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).-In this appeal by Ghulam Muhammad and Appeal No. 54 (R)/1981 by Amjad Ali, the appel--lants who were serving in Grade II under the Auditor-General of Pakistan, two prayers were made. First, that the seniority list prepared by the respon--dent-Department was erroneous, and the second that the appellants being senior to several civil servants, who had been impleaded as respondents, were entitled to promotion with all the consequential benefits, prior to them. A third prayer was to the effect that the appointments of junior persons already made should be reviewed. ,
2. As far as the last prayer is concerned, during the course of argu--azents, it was not pressed, presumably for the reason that if, the first two prayers are accepted by the respondent- Department, then this one shall have to be disposed of in the light of the situation then arising.
3. The first prayer has become infructuous, inasmuch as the respondent itself has revised .The seniority list in accordance with the principle which suits the appellants and which was laid down by a Beech of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 123 (L)/1980 by Abdul Wahid v. Auditor-General of Pakistan and others, decided on 5-1-19.82, The learned counsel for the appellant; admitted that except for the omission of certain names in the revised seniority list of Grade-II employees, the seniority now fixed by the Department is substantially correct, and that he would not press for a deci--sion on the issue, his grievance having been met with at the departmental level. He, however, made it clear that his clients would point out the omissions to the Department which appear to be inadvertent and get them corrected.
4. The prayer for revision of the seniority list having become in--fructuous, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that only a part of his prayer had been redressed by the respondent- Department, which even now had failed to decide on the question of their promotion. They claim promotion to Grade 16 with consequential benefits from the date the persons next junior to them were promoted. The learned counsel for State and the other respondent civil servants, however, opposed this, on the ground that the order of promotion cannot be passed retrospectively. We are not inclined to accept this objection, inasmuch as this is not a question of the departmental authority passing an order having retrospective effect, but it is the question of remedying injustice which has been done to the appellants as a result of their wrong emplacement in the seniority list of Grade-11 employees. If the persons now held to be junior to the appel--lants had been so shown in the seniority list before their promotion, the appellants' cases would have been considered along with or prior to theirs. But they went by default at that time, because the list which then existed showed them in junior positions.
5. The learned counsel for the State argued that there would be difficulty in implementing the order which will require creation of posts and budgeting for funds. We want to make it clear that the administrative difficulties should not come in the way of the appellant's rights. We had been giving decisions in favour of the Government wherever we found that an order passed against it would create administrative problems, but those decisions were never intended to deprive a civil servant of his right, whether it is in respect of office or the emoluments. In a number of cases, we have passed orders for grant of back benefits and all the departments have found ways to implement them. We fail to understand, why the same course cannot be adopted by the respondent Department. An order depriving the appellants of the past benefits would go counter to the decision of the Supreme Court given in the case of Province of the Punjab v. Muhammad Ashraf (1973 SCMR 304). It may be pointed out that the Constitution itself has taken care of such eventualities which, inter alia, in clause (d) of Article 81 pro--vides that any sum required to satisfy an order of the Tribunal shall be charged upon the Federal Consolidated Fund.
6. We may, however; make it clear that some of the respondents do not accept the correctness of the new seniority list, which-has been pre--pared during the pendency of these appeals. They are at liberty to chal--leng that list in accordance with law and the rules.
7. In the above circumstances, we accept these appeals and direct that the names of the appellants should be reconsidered for promotion with effect from the dates from which persons junior to them were promoted from time to time. If the Departmental Promotion Committee approves them for promotion with effect from any of the aforesaid dates (namely the dates from which persons junior to them were promoted) and the competent authority accepts the recommendations, then the appellants should be allowed retrospective promotion with consequential benefits regarding pay, etc.
8. Parties to bear their own costs:
9. Parties to be informed accordingly.