MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, (MEMBER).-Muhammad Saleem Mann, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Old Kotwali, Multan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, whereby he has prayed that the respondent Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan be directed to implement the judgment dated 17th December, 1981 passed by this Tribunal in stricto sense and to order to bestow the vested rights of seniority and prospective promotion to the higher ranks,
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed an appeal No. 164!453 of 1975 before this Tribunal against the order of his dismissal from service passed by the Superintendent of Police. The appeal was accepted vide Judgment dated 9th July, 1978. Consequently the appellant was re- instated in service and was allowed full pay for the intervening period from 6th June, 1974, to 14th September, 1978, by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Multan dated 29th March, 1980.
However, his name was omitted from the seniority list issued by the Police Department. Being aggrieved of this situation, the appellant filed an appeal No. 717/85 of 1980 which was accepted by us vide order dated 17th December, 1981, holding that the appellants' claim to his original place in the seniority was fully justified After communication of the judgment, the appellant filed an application to the respondent on 3rd January, 1982, for the redress of his grievance regarding his rights of previous service for the purposes of further promotion. The appellant also appeared in person on 15th February, 1981, before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and explained his case but without any fruitful result. Instead of passing the order of promotion the departmental authority called for a special report from the Superintendent of. Police, Multan. Since no order tins been communicated to the appellant. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by P. I. Multan. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that although he was re-instated into service but he is not being given his due seniority which has not been reflected in any manner, in the matter of his promotion. It has also been submitted that if the seniority as an A.S.I. Is restored to the appellant, his promotion to promotion List 'E' and his promotion as Sub-Inspector is to fall automatically. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that in the absence of any impugned order, the present appeal is not competent. He has also submitted that in fact the appellant was assigned his due place in the seniority list of A. S. Is. And the claim of the appellant that he should be promoted automatically is erroneous, because the promotion in the rank of Sub-Inspector or the entry of his name in list 'E' can be ordered only on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Although the appellant is fairly senior enough to be considered for entry of his name in List 'A' yet he has been declared as unsuitable by the competent authority.
In this regard he has produced the file of the Department showing that the appellant was considered for entry of his name in promotion List 'E' on 4th November, 1980, 13th September, 1981, and on 24th May, 1982, and was not approved for promotion for the reasons recorded in the said letters. He has also submitted that the present appeal is barred by section 4(1)(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of the case very carefully. It is an admitted position that the appellant was re-instated by this Tribunal vide our judgment dated 9th July, 1978. It is also admitted that his second appeal was accepted by us vide our judgment dated 17th December, 1981, the relevant observations for the purpose of the present appeal as reproduced by the appellant in para. 2 of the appeal is quoted as under :---- ---We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties in support of their contentions and are of the consider--ed opinion that the appellant is entitled to the seniority as his dis--missal was set aside and the respondents themselves considered him in service by granting him arrears of pay for the said period. Therefore, his claim to his original place in the seniority is fully justified. We are fortified in our view by various decisions of this Tribunal and the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in such matters."
The record shows that this judgment of ours was fully implemented and his claim to place him in the seniority list of A. S. Is. In the proper place was accepted by the Department. The perusal of his character rolls show that in consequence of the restoration of the seniority in the rank of A. S. I. This was considered for entry of his name in List 'E' or promo--tion in the rank of S. I. In the meeting held in the year 1980-81, and lastly at on 24th May, 1982 but the appellant was found unsuitable for promotion, Rather in the last meeting it was observed by the D..I-G. That S. P. Should forward his A.
C. R. For the year 1981, alongwith recommendations for fitness' for promotion and his integrity. It means that after considering the appellant for promotion on 24th May, 1982, the case of the appellant was deferred because according to the com--ments of the D. I.-G. On the present appeal, he is again to be considered on merits on receipt of the said materials from S. P. Multan.
Since this Tribunal is precluded from passing any order regarding promotion of a civil servant so at the most we can only direct the departmental autho--rities to consider them for promotion if they are otherwise eligible. Since the departmental authorities has already considered the appellant for promotion in the rank of Sub-Inspector or his entry in List 'E' so the present appeal would not be maintainable.
5. In view of -the above analysis we hold that there are no merits in the present appeal, which is dismissed. However, we hope that D. I.-G. Would abide by his commitment given in the comments to this appeal and will again consider him on receipt of his A. C. R. And recommenda--tions of the S. P. Multan as observed by him in his order dated 24 May, 1982. There will be no order as to costs.th