BRIG. (RETD.) ABDUR RASHID, (MEMBER).--The appellant, Sikander Hayat, joined the Income-tax Department, Rawalpindi Zone on 19-1-1966 as .a lower division clerk and was promoted as upper division clerk on 16-5-1970. He was transferred to Lahore Zone `A' on 8-10-1976 as a result of an option which he exercised willingly when Rawalpindi Zone Office was bifurcated.
2. The appellant was transferred from Lahore 'A' to Rawalpindi Zone on 27-9-1980 at his own request and because of his mother's sickness, a fact which the appellant has tried to gloss over.
3. After being posted to Rawalpindi Zone from Lahore Zone `A', the appellant preferred an appeal, which bears no date, reclaiming his seniority in Rawalpindi Zone in relation to his juniors who have been cited as respondents 3 to 7 in the appeal before us. The Commissioner Income-tax vide his letter dated 9-1-1981 turned down the request of the appellant in the light of C.B.R. Letter No. C. N.
4/1/AIT-2/77, dated 9-6-1979 wherein it was laid down, in respect of the seniority of ministerial staff (Grades 5-15) that; -----In the event of a transfer of an official from one `Zone to another, the transfer being on his own option, he shall be treated as the junior --most person in that Zone."
4. Aggrieved from the above order of the Commissioner. Rawalpindi zone, the appellant filed his present appeal before tile Federal Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 praying that the appellant be declared senior to respondents 3 to 7.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the legality of the Commissioners of Income- tax laying down a policy with regard to the sen--iority of ministerial staff (Grades 5-15) in a conference held in May, 1979. When we brought to his notice that the said decision had been ratified by the C.B.R. And then circulated to all concerned vide C.B.R letter dated 9-6-1979, the said learned counsel changed his stance by saying that this letter should have been published as a Gazette notification so that every one concerned with its implications had come to know of it.
Whether circulated as a mere policy letter, no one can detract from the fact that it is an official policy letter and it cannot be disregarded only because it was not gazetted. The argument of the learned counsel, being specious, was therefore, repelled by us.
6. We heard the learned State counsel. He placed on record an Application No. 23, dated 21-7-1980 written by the appellant to the C.B.R. Through proper channel which pleaded that he be transferred to Rawalpindi because his sick mother was not receiving due attention. The transfer of the appellant was, thus, at his own request and not in public interest. The said learned counsel, in this connection, drew our attention to C.B.R. Posting order dated 27-9-1980 in para. 2 of which it was clearly mentioned that the appellant will not be entitled to draw T.A./D.A., and indication that the transfer was at his request and not in public interest. Against this argument, the learned counsel for the appellant said that the appellant should have been made aware in the posting order itself that he would take his seniority in Rawalpindi Zone from the date of his joining the said office. In our opinion the omission of this minor matter of technical detail does not entitle the appellant to something which he is not otherwise allowed. We are quite clear in our mind that the appellant was or, should have been fully aware of his seniority position at Rawalpindi especially after the C.B R.
Policy letter of 9-6-1979. In fact this issue is not a new one and in this connection we advert to Cabinet Secretariat (Establishment Divn.) O. M. No. 6/15/48-M.E. Dated 31-3-1951 addressed to all ministries. Para. 6 of the O. M. Ibid as to the ministerial establishment lays down :---- "6. Seniority on transfer from one office to another.-(a) When it is open to the person concerned to accept or refuse an offer of appointment in another office, he should count his seniority in the new office from the date of his transfer to that office ;
(b) When a person is compulsorily transferred to another office as a result of conscription, or alongwith the post and work, be should be allowed to count his previous continuous service in the grade to--wards seniority in that grade in the new office."
7. We are in no doubt that the appellant was fully aware of the place he should be assigned in the seniority list at Rawalpindi in accordance with the latest instructions in vogue. He knew that since his posting to Rawalpindi had been made on compassionate grounds at his own request he was not entitled to any previous seniority and that is why he made no such revelation in his appeal.
Instead, he made himself appear to be an aggrieved person who had been transferred from Lahore to Rawalpiridi in normal course (in public interest) and was still being denied his due seniority. Apart from the fact that appeal is devoid of merit, the conduct of the appellant is, also, not above board because he has not come out with complete facts as he should have.
8. In view of the foregoing seasons, we dismiss this appeal with costs fixed at Rs. 100.
9. Parties to be informed.