ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER).-In this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the appellant; Waheed Ullah Khan, claims that he is senior in the grade of - stenographers (of the Geological Survey of Pakistan) to Faizur Rehman's, respondent No. 4, Samiuddin respondent No. 5 and Muhammad Mushtaq, respondent No. 6 and is also. Entitled to the accruing benefits of seniority with his right of promotion to the higher grades namely those of Superintendent, Administrative Officer and Assistant Director, Geological Survey of Pakistan. The appellant has also challenged -further promotion after the grade of stenographers of respondents 4 and 5.
Muhammad Mushtaq, respondent No. 6 died during the pendency of this appeal and his name was deleted from the list of respondents. The contest of seniority of accruing benefits is, now, confined to the appellant and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 only.
2. The background of this case is that the Department of Geological Survey of Pakistan, then a- subordinate office, was merged with the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Department of Petroleum and Minerals and the status thereof was raised to that of an attached Department with effect from 10-6-1959. The Bureau of Mineral Resources was abolished with effect from 20-5-1962, while the Department of Petroleum and Minerals was transferred to the Provincial Government with effect from 21-5-1962. In this way the Department of Geological Survey of Pakistan remained an attached Department since 10-6-1959.
3. Respondent No. 4 had been appointed stenographer in the Depart--ment of G. S. P. On regular basis against a substantive post with effect from 7-5-1956 and respondent No. 5 on a similar post with effect from 17-2-1956. The record shows that by order dated 9-10-1957 both these respondents were formally confirmed with effect from the dates of their appointments though respondent No. 4 was shown senior to respondent No. 5 in spite of the latter having been appointed prior to the former. There is no dispute about the inter se seniority of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to look into the matter how respondent No. 4, in spite of being junior in service, was placed over respondent No. 5.
4. Here it may be mentioned that according to the rules then appli--cable, it was not necessary for a stenographer of subordinate Department, to qualify the F. P. S. C. Examination and it was for this reason that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were confirmed as stenographers on 9-10-1972 with effect from the dates of their appointments without clearance from the said Commission. The appellant was not then an employee of the Geological Survey of Pakistan, then a subordinate Department.
However, when this Department became an attached Department, the appellant was appointed stenographer on ad hoc basis on 11-10-1960. He qualified the F. P. S. C. Examination in 1965 and he was confirmed with effect from 8-10-1965 in the Geological Survey of Pakistan, which had then the status of an attached Department.
5. The appellant's case is hat since the status of Geological Survey of Pakistan was raised from" subordinate office to that of an attached Department, the posts of stenographers on regular basis were available only to those persons who qualified the F. P. S. C. Examination. There is no doubt that the rules did provide that appointments to the posts of steno--grapher in the Central Secretariat and its attached Departments were to be filled in only from amongst the stenographers who qualified the F. P. S. C. Examination. The appellant urges that on the raisins of the status of the Geological Survey of Pakistan from subordinate office to that of an attached Department, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 could be brought on regular basis as stenographer in that Department only if they qualified the F. P. S. C. Examination and that since they had never qualified that examination their appointments were not regular and that they could not be placed senior to him.
In fact, it appears that at one stage the appellant had been shown senior to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the Geological Survey of Pakistan when it became an attached Department, In one of the lists, the Geological Survey of Pakistan had then shown respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to have been confirmed from 1969 whereas the appellant was so shown from 1965. This was, in our opinion, not correct. We have no doubt that the Geological Survey of Pakistan authorities have handled this case in an inapt manner. It is also worth highlighting that the administration of Geological Survey of Pakistan needs to be improved. We have expressed this feeling from the fact that, so far, no final seniority list of the said Department has been issued. The last list was issued in 1977 which has yet to be finalised even though a period of five years has elapsed. The Ministry concerned and the Establishment Division ought to look into this case and have a final seniority list issued at the earliest.
6. In the memo. Of appeal the appellant has given several facts and has quoted certain Government orders but for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is not necessary to go into details thereof. The only question to be determined is whether the appellant in the grade of stenographer could claim seniority over respondents Nos. 4 and 5 on the facts just stated.
7. The appellant's claim is that since he, on the basis of rules applicable to the attached Departments, was eligible for regular appoint--ment and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not so eligible, he should have been placed senior to them and should have been given promotion as a result thereof prior to them.
8. We have examined the record of the case and heard the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents on the specific issue. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised some legal objections as well but, in our opinion, the matter can be decided on the facts of the case alone. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 had been confirmed in the Geologi--cal Survey of Pakistan when it was a subordinate office. The status of that Department was raised to that of an attached Department and all the employees thereof were absorbed therein. Though for holding a regular appointment in an attached Department, clearance of the F. P. S. C. Was necessary, nevertheless, since respondents Nos. 4 and 5 had already been confirmed in the Department when it was a subordinate office, there was no justification to deconfirm them and to place them junior to a person who joined 10 years after their regular appointment in the subordinate office. In fact, no order of deconfirmation of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 was ever passed and even if it had been so passed; it would not have been valid for the reasons that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 having been once confirmed continued to enjoy their seniority from the dates from which they were confirmed.
Several office memos. And instructions, issued from time to time, on the subject in question, were brought to our notice but we are not inclined to examine them in detail because, in our opinion, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 having joined earlier and having, been confirmed in the Geological Survey of Pakistan retained their seniority from the date of confirmation, notwithstanding the change of the status of the Department. No rule has been brought to our notice to the effect that when the status of subordinate offices is changed to that of an attached department or it becomes a part of the Secretariat, the employees thereof who have been confirmed lose their seniority. It appears that in respect of merger of the three Departments the cadre of Geological Survey of Pakistan had been kept separate and their seniority was also shown separately. There is, thus, no dispute among the employees of the department of Geological Survey of Pakistan and the other two Depart--ments which were subsequently separated.
9. On the above findings, therefore, we are not convinced of the stand taken by the appellant that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were not regular employees of the Geological Survey of Pakistan when it became an attached Department. In our opinion the two respondents were correctly shown as senior to the appellant in the seniority lists after 1966 as they had been confirmed long before his appointment.
10. The appellant referred to several reported cases but they are not relevant for determining the seniority and pertain only to the consequential benefits. We are not referring to these cases as the appellant has not succeeded with regard to his claim of seniority and, therefore, the question of consequential benefits does not arise.
11. In view of the above facts we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.
12. Parties be informed accordingly.