' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Anwar Vincent, Senior Scale Stenographer, Board of Revenue, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Full Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, Senior Member (Estt.), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and Messrs Rizwan Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Jamil Irfani, Personal Assistants, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order, dated 16th February, 1982, passed by respondent No, 2 and order, dated 27th March, 1982, passed by respondent No, 1 be set aside and he be declared senior to respondents Nos, 3 and 4, with full benefits of pro forma promotion.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was promoted from the post of Junior Clerk to that of Stenotypist w,e,f, 26th March, 1962. He secured further promotion as Stenographer Grade-I, vide order, dated 12th June, 1974. Eventually he proceeded on ex-Pakistan leave during the year 1974.
However, in his absence respondents Nos, 3 and 4 were promoted in N. P. S. 12 vide order, dated 23rd October, 1975. When the appellant came back to Pakistan, he was also promoted in N. P. S. 12 but from 11th October, 1979. Against the promotion of respondents, which had taken place in his absence, he made a representation to respondent No, 2 with the request that he may be promoted from the date the two respondents were so promoted. However, as no reply was received by him, he came before this Tribunal vide Appeal No, 321/668 of 1980. The Tribunal vide its judgment, dated 16th August, 1981, remanded the case to the Board of Revenue with the direction that the seniority of the appellant vis-a vis the answering respondents may be decided according to rules and if he was found to be senior to them then the Board may make up its mind if it was willing to grant him pro forma promotion or not. The appellant in accordance with this judgment made a representation to the Member (Estt.) Board of Revenue, Punjab, by appending a copy of the judgment so given in his case. This representation stood rejected by the order, dated 16th February, 1982, by the Senior Member (Estt.), Board of Revenue. Against this order he filed appeal before the Full Board of Revenue, which vide its judgment, dated 27th March, 1982, declined to interfere with the order of the Senior Member (Estt.), Board of Revenue, on the point of jurisdiction with the direction that the appellant was at liberty to seek redress by filing representation under section 21
(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, to the next higher authority.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the entire record of this case with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the Full Board of Revenue is defective in the manner, as it has refused to exercise jurisdiction which was so vested in it. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the Full Board of Revenue being the appellate authority of Senior Member (Estt.), Board of Revenue, was fully competent to exercise its jurisdiction over his decision so taken by him on the representation of the appellant.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the argument so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was misconcieved for the reasons that Full Board of Revenue, was only an Appellate Authority for the purpose of E & D Rules and not for the purpose so mentioned in the representation filed by the appellant for his seniority and pro forma promotion.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and after looking into the Rules and Procedure, set up by the Board of Revenue, we find that Full Board of Revenue, is only an Appellate Authority in matters of E & D Rules whereas the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department, would be the higher authority for the matters relating to terms and conditions of service of civil servants under that hierarchy against the order of Member (Estt.), Board of Revenue. We are also of the considered opinion that the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department enjoys dual powers as a Member of the Board of Revenue and as Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department, Lahore. In view of the above, it cannot be said that he would not be higher authority in service matters over the Member (Estt.), B. O. R. In any manner of whatsoever.
8. Keeping in view the above analysis of this legal position, we do not find any justification to interfere with the directions so given by the Full Board of Revenue by which the appellant, has been directed to avail his legal remedy before the next authority of the Sr. Member (Estt.), B.O.R. Which would be the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department. This being the position we are of the considered opinion, that this appeal would also be not maintainable before us as the appellant has yet to exhaust remedy as envisaged under section 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
9. The result is we proceed to dismiss the appeal as being incompetent. Parties will bear their own costs.