1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appeal by Mr, Muhammad Sharif Shafqat under section 4 of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunals Ordinance, 1969. In the amended appeal filed by him, he claims the following reliefs:-
(a) that the initial recruitment of respondents 2 to 5 and 7 may be declared illegal and void;
(b) that the appellant be declared senior to Messrs Qamar Ahmad, S. S. Qadri, Muhammad Aslam Khan, Sh. Muhammad Aslam, Shahid Hussain, Faiz Ahmad Niazi and Sh. AnwarHussain, respondents 2 to 8;
(c) that the transfer of Mr. Shahid Hussain respondent No. 6, from Headquarters Office of Lahore Region be declared as illegal; and
(d) that the reversion of the appellant as Assistant Labour officer from the post of Labour Officer made on 2-2-1970 be declared as illegal and void, and that the appellant be, considered to have continued as Labour Officer.
2. The seniority, which the appellant seeks to establish over respondents 2 to 8 is in the rank of Assistant Labour Officer. As against Mr. Anwar Hussain, respondent No. 8, he would also like to have his seniority determined as Inspector Shops and Weights.
3. The appellant is represented by Mr. Munir Ahmad Advocate. The Director, Lahore Region is represented by Mr. A. G. Humayyum Government Pleader. Mr. Shahid Hussain respondent No. 6, is represented by Mr. Altaf Muhammad Khan, Advocate. Sh. Anwar Hussain is present along with Mr. Abdul Khaliq, Advocate Messrs S. S. Qadri, Sh. Muhammad Aslam, Shahid Hussain are present in person. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Mr. Qamar Ahmad and Faiz Hamid Khan Niazi, are absent. Ex parte against them.
4. The appellant was recruited as Inspector, Shops and Weights under the Industries Department on 5-7-1950. In April 1952, the Shops and Weights Branch of the Industries Department having been transferred to the Labour Department, the appellant came to be designated as Labour Inspector.
5. On 26th May 1964, he was promoted as Assistant Labour Officer in the Lahore Region, then known as Central Region. His appointment was temporary. On 11-2-19--7, he was promoted as Labour Officer, but he was reverted as Assistant Labour Officer, on 2nd February 1970, and is still Assistant Labour Officer, allocated to the Lahore Region. The allocation to the various regions took place as a result of the scheme of reorganisation of the department on regional basis enforced in 1962.
6. Mr. Qamar Ahmad, respondent No. 2, was directly waited as Assistant Labour officer in the Sargodha Region on 16-2-1966 and has been promoted as Labour Officer from1st July 1969.
7. Mr. S. S. Qadri, respondent No. 3, who was recruited as Assistant in the Civil Secretariat, was deputed to the Labour Department as Assistant Labour Officer in the Headquarters Office from 1st March 1965. He claimed deputation allowance. It was sanctioned in 1968. On 8-10-1969, it was decided to retain him permanently in the Labour Department. He was promoted as labour Officer.
8. His pro forma date of promotions Labour Officer is 1-3-1968. He is allocated tote Headquarters Office.
9. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, respondent No. 4, was an Assistant in the office of Excise and Taxation Department. He having been become surplus there, was transferred as Assistant to the Headquarters Office of the Labour Department. He has been appointed as Assistant Labour Officer in the Lahore Region from 23rd February 1963, against the vacancy of a direct- recruit, He has been promoted as Labour Officer in the Lahore Region from 2nd February 1970.
10. Mr. Shahid Hussain, respondent No. 5, was Inspector, Shops and Weights from 17-3-1948. He was promoted as Assistant Labour Officer in the Lahore Region from 25th April 1963. From 6th June 1964, he was transferred to the Headquarters Office as Officer Incharge of Weights and Measures, Lahore Region, in the grade of Labour Office. This post was designated as that of Labour Officer (Weights and Measures) on the 29th June 1968. He continues to serve in the Headquarters Office, but from 2nd February 1970, he was appointed as Labour Officer on ad hoc basis subject to the approval of Public Service Commission in a vacancy of Lahore Region.
11. Mr. Faiz Hamid Khan Niazi, respondent No.7, was directly recruited as Assistant Labour Officer in the Sargodha Region from 7th November 1962. He was promoted as Labour Officer in the same Region from 1-7-1969. From 2-2-1970, he has further been promoted as Assistant Director, Lahore Region.
12. Sh. Anwar Hussain, respondent No. 8, who was recruited as junior Clerk in the Industries Department, was promoted on 26-9-1949, as Leave Reserve Inspector of Shops and Measures in lie scale of Rs. 60 flied. On 23rd July 1951, he was promoted as Inspector, Shops and Weights in the scale of Rs. 80-5-140/7-- 185. In 1952, the pay scale of Leave Reserve Inspector was made equivalent to that of Inspector, Shops and Weights w. e. f. 1-1-1950. In consequence of this equation, he has been given benefit of seniority as Inspector of Shops from 1-1-1950 by order dated 11th November 1961. He was promoted as Assistant Labour Officer in the Lahore Region from 30th November 1963, and as Labour Officer from 12th January 1966.
13. The Rules applicable to the Sub6rdinate Service were the West Pakistan Labour Welfare Subordinate Service Rules, 1962. These Rules were superseded by West Pakistan Labour Welfare Subordinate Service Rules, 1969.
14. As we are unable to interfere with the reversion of the appellant as Assistant Labour officer on 2-2- 1970, we are unable relief to him in this behalf to grant any relief to him in this behalf.
15. The appellant has further prayed for his being allocated to Sargodha Region in accordance with the option exercised by him n at4. We find that his home district shown in the proforma elating to his preference filed by him is Gujranwala. The first preference indicated by him was Sargodha, and the second preference was Lahore. This pro forma was signed by him on 10th September 1964. The basis of allocation decided upon on reorganisation of the Department on regional basis being domicile, the appellant has been allocated to the Lahore Region, where Gujranwala is located. The appellant is not justified in saying that options were invited. In actual fact, the officers serving the department were merely called upon to indicate two preferences. The allocation of the appellant is in accordance with the place of his domicile and that is in accordance with the policy decision as to allocation of the officers to the various regions. It nay be mentioned that under rule 3 of the rules, the service shall be constituted on the basis of regional cadres the members of one cadre not being eligible, save as provided in rule 10, for appointment in any other cadre of the service and each cadre shall comprise posts specified in column 2 of the Appendix to these Rules, and such other posts as may be determined by Government from time to time. Vacancies to be filled by initial recruitment were also reserved for bona fide residents of the Regions, where the vacancies occurred. This being the case and service being constituted on regional basis, seniority has to be determined region-wise so that an Assistant Labour Officer of one region cannot claim seniority over Assistant Labour Officer allocated to another region. In this respect of the case, The appellant cannot claim seniority over Mr. Qamar Ahmad and faizHamid Khan Niazi, respondents 2 and 7, who stand allocated to the Sargodha Region. The appellant has been assigned to, the Lahore Region one the question is whether he can claim seniority over other officer who are posted in the Headquarters Office, Mr. S. S. Qadri being in that office. `Region' has been defined in clause (i) of sub rule (2) of rule (1) of the 1962-Rules as the whole of the are under the charge of:- (i)the Joint Director of Labour Welfare, Karachi is the case of Karachi Region; and (ii)Deputy Director of Labour Welfare in other cases.
16. The Punjab Province is now divided into four Regions namely, Lahore Region, Sargodha Region, Multan Region ant Rawalpindi Region, and there is a separate Headquarters Office While each of the Regions are under the charge of a Deputy Director of Labour Welfare, and are therefore, covered by the definition of a regional office, the Headquarters Office is undo the charge of Director of Labour Welfare (where there are four Deputy Directors of Labour) and, therefore, Headquarters Office does not fall under the definition of a `region': When rule 3 provides that the Service shall consist of regional cadres, and when sub-rule (2) of rule 3 provides for the cadre posts of the Service to be the posts in column of the Appendix and such other posts in the department as may be determined in this behalf, by Government from time to time, and when the Appendix does not mention the Headquarters Office, the Headquarters Office cannot be deemed to be a region under the rules. We understand however, that the Headquarters Office is being so treated, as appears from a Memo of the Directorate of Labour Welfare Nos. 972-1038, dated 8-6-1968, wherein it is stated that it is being treated as a separate region for all intents and purposes of promotion. We are, however, told that this promotion is promotion to Class 1. Mr. A. G. Humayyun, learned Govern-- ment Pleader contends that the Headquarters Office is a separate office, and not a separate region. We find that it cannot be strictly treated as a separate region under the rules as it does not fall under the definition of a region and in order to regularise its position ad a separate region distinct from the other regions, the rules should be suitably amended so as to make it a separate region. On the question whether a person appointed and assigned to Lahore Region can claim seniority over a person assigned to the Headquarters Office, we are inclined to the view that he can claim his seniority in respect of officers in his own region and Headquarters Office being not an office in that region, seniority cannot be claimed over Officers in the Headquarters Office. This may create complications. For example an officer c posted in the Headquarters Office may be posted in a regional office. It is, therefore, necessary that the position of the Head--quarters Office under the rules should be clarified. In this aspect of the case, the appellant is not entitled to claim seniority over --Mr. S. S. Qadri, who is assigned to the Headquarters Office. If and when Mr. Qadri is assigned to the Lahore Region, it will be open to the appellant to establish his seniority over him. It may incidently be mentioned that Mr. Qadri was deputed to the Labour Department as A. L. O. and he was treated on deputation. He claimed deputation allowance, and an allowance of 10 per cent was sanctioned to him by order of the Governor dated the 14th June 1968. It was decided to retain him permanently as Assistant Labour Officer in the-Directorate of Labour on 8th October 1969. It has, therefore, been contended on behalf of the appellant that the date of his continuous appointment as A. L. O. in the department is 8-10-1969, and not earlier. That is a matter which we need not decide at this stage as the appellant cannot D claim to establish his seniority except against officers of his own region. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Headquarters Office having been carved out of the Lahore Region, seniority of officers posted in the Lahore Region can be determined qua Headquarters Office, but as held already this being for all intents and purposes not an office of the Lahore Region, the appellant cannot claim to establish his seniority over officers posted in the Headquarters Office, The only other officer, who can be treated as promotee is Sh. Anwar Hussain, respondent No. 8.
17. Under rule 10 of the 1969-Rules as between promotees the date of continuous appoint--ment determines seniority. The question, which falls for determination firstly is when Sh. Anwar Hussain was appointed as inspector, because the appellant claims seniority over him as Inspector. While the appellant was appointed as Inspector on 5-7-1950, Sh. Anwar Hussain was appointed as Leave Reserve inspector on 26th September 1949, and Inspector of Shops and Weights on 23rd July 1951.
18. The appellant claims seniority over him as Inspector on the ground that when Sh. Anwar Hussain was appointed as Leave Reserve Inspector, his pay scale was only Rs. 60 fixed, whereas pay scale of Inspector of Shops and Weights was 80-5-140/71-185. As indicated already, the pay scale of Leave Reserve inspector and Inspector of Shops and Weights was made the same w. e. f. 1-1-1950 and Sh. Anwar Hussain has been given the benefit of seniority from that date as inspector. The post of Leave Reserve Inspector having been equated with that of Inspector, the appointment of Sh.
19. Anwar Hussain is from an earlier date and, therefore, the appellant cannot claim seniority over him we are unable to agree with the contention that when only two posts of Inspectors of Shops and Weights were held by two other persons, Sh. Anwar Hussain could not have been appointed as Leave Reserve Inspector or Inspector of Shops and Weights from that date. We find no force, therefore, in the claim of the appellant to seniority as Inspector. As Assis--tant Labour Officer Sh.
20. Mar Hussain was promoted earlier than the appellant. Therefore, the appellant cannot be declared senior to him as A. L. O. either.
21. For determination of seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis Muhammad Aslam Khan and Sh.
22. Muhammad Aslam, sub-rule
(2) of rule 10 provides as under:- "Seniority in various grades of the Service of the members appointed by initial recruitment vis-a-vis those appointed otherwise shall be determined:
(a) in case both the officials appointed by initial recruitment and the official appointed otherwise have been recruited against substantive vacancies; or both have been appointed against temporary vacancies, with reference to the date of appointment to such vacancies, in case of the official appointed by initial recruitment, and to the date of continuous appointment against such vacancy, in the case of the official appointed otherwise:- Provided that if the two dates are the same the official appointed otherwise shall rank senior to the official by initial recruitment;
(b) In the case of official appointed, by initial recruitment has been appointed against a substantive vacancy and the official appointed otherwise have been appointed against the temporary vacancies, the official appointed by initial recruitment shall rank senior to the official appointed otherwise ;and
(c) in casts the official appointed otherwise is appointmentagainst a substantive vacancy and the official appointed initial recruitment is appointed against the temporary vacancythe official appointed otherwise shall rank senior to the officialappointed by initial recruitment.
23. The seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis the respondents mentioned above, will depend on the nature of vacancies to which they were appointed. We do not have any material available on our record to determine the nature of vacancies to which the were appointed, nor is this information available with Mr. A. r: Humayyun, learned Government Pleader or the representative r 3 the Department who came to assist him.
24. We, therefore, direct that the department concerned shall work out the nature of vacancies to which the aforesaid appellants (Muhammad Aslam Khan and Sheikh Muhammad Aslam) were appointed and their inter se seniority shall be redecide within three months.
25. We order as above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.