' This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 7th August, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent No, 1 was accepted and it was directed that his seniority could not be fixed according to the merits determined by the selection committee but he would retain his lower grade seniority according to the amended rule 9 (9) (ii).
2. The facts are that respondent No, 1 and newly-added respondents appeared before the selection committee for promotion to higher grade. Result was announced but merits were not announced as in a. Suit brought by one of the candidates stay order had been issued by the civil Court. In the pendency of the suit rule 9 (9) was amended according to which the seniority of the selected candidates in the same batch was to be fixed according to the previous seniority in lower grade and not in order of merits obtained by them in the selection.
3. Respondent No, 1 did not appear on the day of arguments and was proceeded ex parte. The newly-added respondents have argued that the amended rule would not apply to pending cases.
They have cited PLD 1971 SC 252 and PLD 1974 SC 180. The former authority is not germane to the case. The latter is relevant but goes against the newly-added respondents. It says that amended law applies to pending cases. Since before the seniority could be declared and the selected candidate promoted the rule was changed so the new rule applied and not the old one. The lower Court, therefore, rightly directed that the seniority of respondent No, 1 be fixed according to the seniority in lower grade and not according to the merits declared by the selection committee.
' As a result of the observation made above I do not find any for in the appeal and dismiss it.