' In this appeal decision, dated 29th of December, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 8, Bahawalpur has been challenged by which the grievance petition of Bashir Ahmed claiming seniority over Ghulam Sattar respondent No, 2 and direction for being given due chance of promotion as Head Clerk in N.P.S. 11 was dismissed.
2. Ghulam Sattar, respondent No, 2 was Clerk in the Watch and Ward Department of the Railway and was transferred to the Commercial Branch before the appellant came in service in the said branch and before the Pakistan Railways Police Ordinance, 1976 which was enforced on 25th October, 1976 had been promulgated. The line of arguments of the respondent is that although Ghulam Sattar had been transferred to the Commercial Branch before the appellant came in service but vide order Exh. R-10 he was directed to be transferred back to Watch and Ward Branch.
He has also argued that no post of Clerk Grade-III was existing when in Commercial Branch Ghulam Sattar had been transferred there inasmuch as there are only three categories of posts of Clerks viz. Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk and Head Clerk. I do not find any force in this argument. Some posts out of the three categories may be Grade-III and the nomenclature may have been changed from Clerk Grade-III to L.D.C. Or U.D.C. All official acts are presumed to have been done correctly unless contrary is proved. If there had been no post of Grade-III Clerk or any post in the corresponding cadre no question of transfer of Abdul Sattar to such post would have arisen. So far as Exh. R-10 is concerned no doubt Abdul Sattar was at one time ordered to be transferred back to Watch and Ward Department but the said order was withdrawn vide another order Exh. R-7. Learned counsel has conceded that since the Watch and Ward Branch and Commercial Branch had been placed under the same Head Office, therefore, inter-transfer of the incumbents between two branches was legal. This being so, it cannot be said that Abdus Sattar was wrongly, illegally and without jurisdiction transferred to the Commercial Branch. Since he had been legally transferred, he was rightly promoted to the post of Head Clerk when the vacancy arose in the said Branch and the appellant who admittedly was junior to him could not claim promotion. Of course if Abdul Sattar had been transferred in the Commercial Branch the appellant may have some case. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited PLD 1970 SC 453 and has argued that the interpretation and implementation of rules made by department cannot be disturbed. The observations made in the authority are as under : " 'Where the department practice has followed a course in the implementation of the relevant rule whether right or wrong it will be extremely unfair to make a departure from it after lapse of many years and to disturb rights that have been settled by a long and consistent course by the practice.'
It has been further observed that as regards departmental instructions i,e, the construction which is placed in presence of the provisions of a statute or rule by the Administrative authorities who are charged with the execution of the statute or the rules Crawford thus observes. "Where the executive construction has been followed for a long time an element of estoppel seems to be involved.
Naturally many rights will grow up in reliance upon the interpretation placed upon a statute by those, whose duty is to execute it. Often grave injustices would result should the Courts reject the construction adopted by the executive authorities."
Firstly the question of estoppel arises only by a construction followed for a long time made by the executive authorities whose duty is to execut the rules, which element of long practice is missing in the present case and secondly even if the observation made in the authority is followed, it rather goes against the interest of the appellant instead of supporting his case. The department has decided that since Abdus Sattar had been transferred to the Commercial Branch well before the Pakistan Railway Police Ordinance, 1976 was promulgated, he could not be transferred back to the Security Guard Branch. According to the observations made in the Authority, if it is said that it applies, it supports the case, of respondent No,
2. As a result of the observations made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine.