BRIG. (RETD.) ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER).-The appellant, Sheikh Abdul Hamid, was appointed a lower division clerk w.e.f. 27-5-1944 in the office of the Director-General of Supplies on a temporary basis. After independence, he was posted to the General Headquarters Rawalpindi on 24-9-47. He was later on transferred to the Defence Ministry Secretariat on 30-3-1949 and on 20-8-1949, he was made permanent L. D. C. w.e.f. 15-8-1947. His seniority which stood settled and determined as a result of judgments of superior courts as Assistant reckons from 1-6-48. However, in respect of appellant's promotion to the grade of Section Officer, he was allegedly considered, taking him to be an Assistant since 19-6-1954 (in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and not from, 1-6-1948 (the date of appoint--ment in the Ministry of Defence). In this connection; the appellant has filed a photo copy of judgment dated 20-12-1978 passed by the High Court of Sind, Karachi in Miscellaneous Application No. 2135/78 in W.P. No. 391 of 1957. The relief sought by the appellant was-
(a) to issue directions to the appropriate authorities to follow the correct date of appointment as admitted/settled i.e. 1-6-1948 for all purposes for the determination/redetermination of his position(s) beyond the grade of assistant with full consequential benefits ;
(b) pass such other orders and or grant such other relief as may be considered just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
2. The Judgment referred to above is reproduced below :- "It may be observed that the petition was disposed by judgments dated 18-12-58 and dated 15-4- 59 whereby the writ of mandamus was issued to the respondent directing it to restore the petitioner to his seniority on the basis of his continuous service since 27th May, 1944. The grievance of the petitioner, in the present application, is that the Government has disregarded the correct date of his promotion as Assistant i.e. 1-6-48 and refused to follow the same for the considera-- tion/reconsideration, determination/redetermination of his case(s) on that basis fox further advancement in his career (beyond the grade of Assistant) , etc. And that in doing so the judgment/orders of the court do not seem to have been complied with properly and completely and seem to have been disregarded, violated. It may be noticed that the petitioner has not alleged that the petitioner has not been restored to his seniority on the basis of his continuous service since 27-5-44 which was ordered by this court, referred to hereinabove. In our view, the grievance in the present application is not covered by the, judgments of the above disposed of petition and, therefore, it cannot be urged that the respondents have violated the order of this court. In our view the petitioner will have to invoke the appropriate legal remedy in case he has any genuine grievance. We do not find any merit in the above application, and therefore, the same is dismissed without issuing notice to the respondents." .
3. The appellant preferred a departmental Appeal on 1st October, 1979 and followed it up with remainders. Finally, however, the Establish--ment Division vide their O.M. Dated 9-12-1980) copy endorsed to the appellant on 15-12-1980) said; ------------.The representation of Sheikh Abdul Hamid has been examined in this Division but his request for ante-dating his seniority in the grade of Section Officer on the basis of his seniority in the lower grade cannot be acceded to."
Thereafter the appellant filed his present appeal on 14-1-81 under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
4. We heard the appellant on 6-2-1983. The learned counsel for the respondents asked for a day's adjournment which was allowed and we heard his arguments on 7-2-1983. On 6-2-1983, the appellant expressed his inabi--lity to be present on 7-2-1983 and had no objection to our hearing this appeal in his absence since according to him, his presence, though difficult on 7-2-1983, was also not necessary.
5. The appellant laid special emphasis on the fact that the date of his appointment as Assistant having been accepted as. 1-6-1948 his promotion as Section Officer be regulated accordingly. He distinguished his case from that of H.M. Ashrafullah before this Tribunal (in appeal No. 139 (8)/1979) in one respect in that the date of H.M. Ashrafullah to the. Grade of Assistant had not been determined whereas in the case of the appellant this date stood determined to be 1-6-1948. We are, unable to agree to this assertion of the appellant and have no hesitation in saying that the appellant's seniority as Assistant was finally determined in late 1962 when he had already been promoted as a Section Officer in February of the said year. The appellant, is, therefore, trying to over-simplify an otherwise a complex matter. We shall, however, not rely on, our judgment relating to the case of H M. Ashrafullah but decide to present appeal before us on its own merits.
6. As already mentioned and we repeat that final orders ante-dating his appointment as Assistant to 1-6-1948 were actually issued by the Ministry of defence on 29-12-1962 after he already stood promoted as Section Officer on 6-2-1962. In other words, his ante-dating of seniority as Assistant took more than 141 years and a lot had happened in this long period. In this connection sub-clause
(iv) of clause (1) of rule 13 of the C. S. S. (Class 1) Rules, 1965 which came into being for the first time laid down : "the previous seniority inter se of the officers from the same service or grade obtaining at the time of appointment to the grade of Section Officer shall, other things being equal, not be disturbed." Not only that the said rule was subsequently amended and those like the appellant, who were appointed Section Officers upto 23-10-1965 were included in the initial 'recruitment to whom the rule ibid became fully applicable. Such being the situation, the superior courts' determination of the appellant's seniority from 1-6-1948 in the grade of Assistant cannot affect his seniority in the grade of Section Officer where the sole determining factor is rule 13 of the C.S.S. (Class 1) Rules 1965 which has been quoted, meaning thereby that his seniority as Assistant w.e.f 1- 6-1948 ceases to be relevant w.e.f. 6-2-1962' when he was promoted Section Officer.
7. We are quite clear in our mind that no injustice has been done to the appellant and that he has not suffered even a wee bit in advancement of his professional career. He was promoted Section Officer w.e.f. 6-2-1962 on the basis of his seniority as Assistant reckoning from 19-6-1954. He advanced further as Deputy Secretary even though his seniority as Assistant from 1-6-1948 which he is now demanding has not been given effect to till this day. In his arguments before us, the appellant emphasised that had his seniority as Assistant ante-dated from 1-6-48 against his seniority date of 19-6-1954 which was actually allowed him, he would have moved up in his career beyond Deputy Secretary. Conjectural though these arguments of the appellant are, we are sure that he is far removed from the world of reality. We say this on the simple ground that the appellant who was born on 1-12-1928 was retired as Deputy Secretary vide notification dated 22-11-1980 after completion of 25 years of service but nearly eight years before reaching the age of superannuation. Had this not happened, he would have been considered for the next grade irrespective of whether his date as Assistant reckoned from 1-6-1948 or 19-6-1954. Now that he has retired and has got an equally good or a better job in the Roti Corporation, it will be unfair on our part to turn back the clock by as much as thirty five years especially when no good with result to the appellant' and when we know that he has had a fair deal. If however, we had even a slight feeling that the appellant had been treated unjustly, we would have been quite prepared to reopen the Pendora's Box but the present case does not warrant this treatment. We shall be very reluctant to go back to 1-6-1948 which would cause greater problems not benefiting the appellant at all and yet virtually disturbing the administrative equilibrium. No doubt, the appellant has pursued his case with the intensity of an injured preroga--tive and we admire his tenacity but we cannot help remarking that had he been more analytical, he would have known that all that he was striving for had already been fulfilled without being given his seniority from 1-6-1948.
8. In view of the foregoing reasons we dismiss this - appeal with no order as to costs.