This matter has come up before me under section 3-A (2) (b) of the Service Tribunals Act. 1973 on a difference of opinion between the two Mem--bers of the Bench which heard Miscellaneous Application No. 28/82 in Ap--peal No. 99 (L) of 1980.
2. The facts are given in the two dissenting orders but to some extent there is some error regarding the dates of promotion of the persons over whom the appellant claims seniority as Deputy Superintendent of Police. I shall, therefore, reiterate the facts briefly.
3. The appellant was promoted from the grade of Sub-Inspector to that of Inspector and worked in the later capacity from 26-5-1979 to 6-4-1980. On 6-4-1980 he was reverted as Sub-Inspector.
After exhausting departmental remedy, he approached the Tribunal by way of appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. The Tribunal, after considering the facts of the case, made order in his favour holding that the order of reversion was void. It was directed that the appellant shall be considered to have never been reverted and he shall be given the pay and allowances of the period during which he stood reverted as Sub-Inspector. Incidentally the Tribunal also made the following observation :-- " He will also be given rightful seniority over those junior who may have been promoted over him after the impugned reversion order of 6th April now null and void."
4. Appellant's contention is that to show that the order of Tribunal had been implemented, he was promoted on ad hoc basis on 29-4-1982 but had again been reverted on 3-7-1982 though Inspectors who were junior to him and had been promoted earlier, were still Deputy Superintendents of Police, and had not been touched. The names of these Deputy Superintendents of Police and dates of their promotion are given below :-.
1. Ameer Nawaz Khan,... 20-9-1980
2. Saeed Ullah Khan... 26-7-1981
3. Haji Ahmed... 3-8-1981
4. Ejaz Ahmed... 24-8-1981
5. Learned counsel for Railway has explained that Inspector-General of Police who was the only respondent in the appeal, had powers to make ad hoc appointments only and that ad hoc appointment was duly made as a result of Tribunal's decision dated 3-2-1982. He also contented that the case of the appellant was referred to the D. P. C. On 20-3-1982 and that the said D. O. C.
Also recommended the name of the appellant alongwith others on 27-5-1982 but the appointing authority namely the Secretary, Ministry of Railways did not approve the recommendations of D. P.
C. Learned counsel for Railways further stated that whenever the appellant is promoted on regular basis by the competent authority i.e. Secretary, Railway, his seniority will be placed over the 4 persons named above in accordance with the Establishment Division O. M. Referred to by Mr. A. O.
Raziur Rehman's, Member in his order.
6. In my opinion no action can be taken on this Miscellaneous applica--tion because the placing of seniority of the appellant in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or for that matter, his promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police does not arise out of the original appeal which the Bench had decided. The appellant has been given due seniority in the grade of Inspector in accordance with the order of Tribunal. As regards, his pay and allowances for the period he remained revered, conten--tion of the department is that they are going to implement the order as soon as possible. I may however point out that in case Tribunal's order regard--ing payment of dues to the appellant is not implemented in reasonable limit then the person responsible for default shall be guilty of misconduct and this Tribunal shall refer the matter to the competent authority for proceeding against him. The case of the appellant that he should be made Deputy Superintendent of Police and placed senior to four persons referred to above is quite a different question and cannot be decided in this Miscellaneous application. I, therefore, do not think that order of Mr. A. O. Raziur Rehman's for proceeding further with the matter by impleading certain persons as parties to the Miscellaneous Application is in accordance with the law.The appellant may seek fresh remedy if he thinks that his promotion has been withheld for reasons other than competency.
7. With the above remarks and with the instructions to the department for clearing the dues of the appellant, this application is rejected.