1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J.- This appeal thr6ugh special leave calls in question judgment dated 20-1-1979, of the Central -Service Tribunal, whereby the Service Appeal filed by the appellant under section 4 of the Service 'Tribunals Act, 1973 was dismissed.
2. The facts and points noted for consideration at the leave stage were- that the appellant had claimed that he was serving in Pakistan Eastern Railway at Chittagong as Divisional Accounts Officer in Grade-18 in 1971. At the time -of fall of Dacca in December, 1971, he was spending his leave at Karachi. On account of the subsequent events beyond his control, he was constrained to report for duty to the Commissioner of Railways, Ministry of Communica--tions, Islamabad (on 26-12- 1971). His grievance was, that although he had since been appointed by the Federal Government to different posts (initially on 20-4-1974 in Grade-16), yet due status, grade and seniority were denied to him, on the assumption his appointment under the Federal Government could not be linked with his past service in East Pakistan. Further, it Was noted that on account of provincialtsation of the subject of Railways by the 1962 Constitution, some Government servants in the Department of Railways were transferred to East Pakistan (as Provincial employees) in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of Transfer of Railways Order (P. O. No. 33) of 1962. Prima facie, reading of this provision showed that the appellant's case did not fall under any of the categories of the Central Employees dealt therein. The respondent's position, however, was that the employees falling in the appellant's category "would automatically become Provincial employees". That being so, be would not have any right left in the Central Government service so as to compete with others in that service; when he joined on 20-4-1974, under the Central Government. Accordingly leave was granted to consider the question of interpretation of Article 9 of P. O. No. 33 of 1962 and other questions raised in the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the point noted in the leave granting order that under Article 9 of 1962, the appellant could not be treated as purely a Provincial employee. He after analysing the provisions of Article 9 as also sub-Article (9) of Article 8 contended that the Central Government retained the control of all such employees who were to serve under the East Pakistan Government. He has also contended that by virtue of the Interim Constitution of 1972, Railways again became Central subject and as at all relevant dates, the appellant was in service, on promulgation of the Interim Constitution (and thereafter as well) he should be deemed to have become and continued Central Government employee till his regular posting on 20.4-1974 in Grade-16: Thus according to him if the appellant's services in East Pakistan would have been linked with his posting under the Central Government, he would not have suffered any grievance.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent while opposing the points raised from the appellant's side has also controverted some material facts asserted by him. With the support of a photo copy of the appointment order of the appellant, in East Pakistan on 30-4-1971, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the appellant was posted as Divisional Accountant, Chittagong in addition to the duties of the post he had held before, i. e. "AAO/Md." This appointment was specified to be temporary and stop-gap arrangement pending approval by the duly constituted Selection Board and it was to be without any prejudice to those who were senior to the appellant. Thus, it has been argued from the respondent's side that it was not correct to say that the appellant was a Grade-18 employee under the East Pakistan Government at the time of the fall of Dacca. It has also been urged from the respondent's side that the appointment of the appellant on 20-4-1974 was conditional on the appellant's accepting the terms and conditions thereof on the Annexure "R-8" of the concise statement of respondent No. 2 contains the terms and conditions. It reads as fallows :- "You are tentatively and subject to further orders offered appointment in Grade-16 NPS in the Accounts Department of P. W. - Railway. You will be allowed the pay last drawn on the P. E. Railway or the maximum to Grade.l6 whichever is legs- 2- This offer of appointment is clearly subject to the following condition :-
(i) That your terms and conditions of service shall be such as may be determined by the competent authority or prescribed from time to time.
(ii) The offer is subject to clearance by the Intelligence Bureau. Govern--ment of Pakistan. In case you are not cleared, this offer and appointment shall be able to be terminated.
(iii) You shall be estopped from laying claim to seniority or promotion etc by virtue of your services with the Pakistan Eastern Railway nor your absorption would prejudice the service rights of persons in comparable or same cadre on Pakistan Western Railway.
3. If the offer of appointment is acceptable to you on the above-- mentioned terms and conditions please convey- your acceptance in writing.
5. The appellant had accepted the appointment subject to the afore--mentioned conditions. He had submitted his acceptance in writing. Now there is no doubt about it-learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed this part of the factual aspect of the case.
6. Although the legal questions raised from the appellant's side particular the interpretation of Article 9 of P. O. No. 43 of 1962, might require a full examination in a proper case, in the facts and circumstances of this case when the appellant had himself accepted the appointment under a clear understand--ing with regard to specified. Terms and conditions of service, we do not consider it a fit and proper case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 21 of the Constitution. This appeal, therefore, is dismissed with costs.