1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appeal by RaufAhmad Bhatti, Stenographer, in the Board of Revenue, Punjab,under section 4 (1) of the West Pakistan Civil Services (AppellateTribunals)
2. Ordinance, 1969, whereby he prays that he be declared senior as Steno typist in the list of Steno- Typists of Board of Revenue, Punjab,w.e.f. 5th March 1960, and as Stenographer in the list of Stenographers of the Board of revenue, w.e.f. 1-12-1965 and that the order of the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, dated 29-7-1970 be declared to be ultra vires and inoperative qua he rights of the appellant. The appellant in fact claims seniority over respondents 2 to 17 respondents 2 to 8 having become Stenographers and the remaining respondents 9 to 1 7 being Steno typists.
3. The appellant is present along with Mr. Masud Riaz, Advocate. The learned Member, board of Revenue is representedby Mr. A. G. Hamayun, Government Pleader, out of the respondents, Messrs Nazar Hussain, Nasrullah Khan, Zafar AliQureshi, Muhammad Fazal Kerala and Abdur Rauf, respondents2 to 6, Anwar Vincent and Muhammad Rashid, respondents Hand 17 are present. The remaining respondents Messrs Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Muhammad Amin Siddiqui, Sultan Aimed and Atta Muhammad, respondents 7 to 10 and Rizwan Ahmed, Muhammad Jamil Irfani, Khalil Ahmed Khan, Nazir HussainGill and Abdus Saeed Khan, respondent R 12 to 16 are absent in spite of service, Rauf Ahmad Bhatti, appellant;-Joined the, Board of Revenue,as Junior Clerk on 29-10-1956 and was sent on deputation to the Director of Census as Junior Clerk from31 -120-1959. The deputation was until further orders and subject to the express condition that his interests will be safeguarded in the office of the --Board of Revenue for and during the period of deputation. He was promoted-.in the Directorate of Census as a Steno typist on probation for months on 1-3-1960 and further promoted as Steno graphed on probation for two months from 2-10-1962.,The Directorate of Census having been wound up from 31-5-1965, the appellant reverted to the Board of Revenue, where on 1-4-1965 by an office order, lib bad been , promoted in absentia as Senior, Clerk. Having reverted to the Board of Revenue, the appellant made representations P-6 to P-10 claiming firstly that he should be promoted as Steno typist and Stenographer from 1-3-1960 and 2- 10-1962, respectively, the dates of his promotion in the Directorate of Census and secondly that he be promoted at least by the Board of Revenue from the dates his juniors in the Board of Revenue were promoted as Steno typists and Stenographers.
4. His second request in his representations was accepted by office order dated 1-6-1970, and the appellant was given pro forma promotion as Steno typist from 5-3-1960, and as Stenographer from 1-12-1965, the date on which his immediate junior Mr. _Nazar Hussain was promoted as such in the Board of Revenue, without being paid any arrears of salary. This promotion was reflected in the seniority list as on 5-6-1970, Annexure P-12, in which he was placed at serial No. 11-A, with respondents 2 to 17, all below him. This led Nazar Hussain, Nasrullah Khan and Zafar Ali Qureshi, respondents 2 to 4 to represent to the learned Member, Board of Revenue, against being given the above promotions. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, heard the parties on 29th July 1970, and passed an order on that date against the present appellant, holding that he could only count his seniority in the cadre of Steno typists in the Board of Revenue from the date of his reversion from the Census Organization. In consequence of this order, in re fixing seniority, respondents 2 to 17 were placed senior to the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by this order, and has moved this Tribunal for establishing his seniority over respondents 2 to 17. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that when he was sent on deputation to the Directorate of Census and his rights were protected and he was given promotion as Steno-- typist and Stenographer from the date his immediate junior Nazar Hussain was promoted, the promotion thus given to him should not have been interfered with by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, for the reason that if the appellant hadremained in the Board of Revenue, he would have been promoted as Steno typist and Stenographer from the dates on which his immediate junior was promoted. On behalf of the respondents it is urged that promotion as Steno typist and Stenographer being not line of promotion of junior clerks, he was not entitled to be promoted fry the date his immediate juror was promoted, and the next below rule is not attracted to appellants case.
5. The learned Member, Board of Revenue in his order on the file, dated 18-7-1-10, passed the following order:-
(i) Hear, both sides. Mt. Rauf went as junior for Clerks, and his rents lie in that cadre and not in any other cadre, i.e., Stenos; (ii)Suitable orders may be passed.
6. It is in pursuance of the above brief order that office order dated 29th July 1970, was issued by the Secretary (Administration) and conveyed to the parties. In the detailed office order issued by the Secretary. (Administration), it was stated that the learned Member,Board of Revenue had decided that Mr. Rauf Ahmad Bhatti was on deputation as Junior Clerk, And, therefore,--his rights lay in that cadre and not in any other,-cadre, viz. that of Steno typists and Stenographers, and he was therefore, entitled to seniority in the cadre of Steno typists in the Board of Revenue after his reversion from the Census Organization, which mean that according to t e seniority, respondents 2 to 17 were senior to the appellant.
7. The dates of entry in to Services and of promotion as Steno --typists and Stenographers are given below :- It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the method of appointment for Steno typists in the Board of Revenue was promotion from Junior Clerks. In support of this, he has produced copses of the orders in which respondents Nos. 2-11 were promoted from Junior Clerks to Steno typists. The appellant was promoted as a Steno typist on 1-3-1960 in the Census organization, where he was on deputation. He was thus on deputation and qualified for this post from this date and be should be given the benefit of his service as Steno typist, from 1-3-1960 big appointment in: the Census Organization cannot be said to be an appointment in the Board of Revenue. Promotion of a person While op deputation does not automatically entitle him to pro--motion in the parent department, and needs examination according to the rules.
8. Promotion of a person on deputation is governed by note 4 to rule 4,13 of C. S. R. (Pb.), Vol. 1,Part 1, which relates to pay of officiating Government servants. The note to rye rule:- The following guiding principles are laid down for the working of the convention usually known as the next below rule :-
(1) A Government servant out of his regular line should not suffer by forfeiting officiating promotion which he would otherwise have received, had he remained in big regular line.
(2) The fortuitous officiating promotion of some one junior to a Government servant who is out of the regular line does not give rise to a claim under the next below rule.
(3) Before a claim is established, it is necessary that all the Government servants senior to the Government servant who is out of, the regular line should have been given officiating promotion.
(4) It is also necessary that the Government servant next below him should have been given promotion, unless in any case the officiating promotion has not been given because of inefficiency, unsuitability or leave.
9. The above note has to 6e read with rule 10.5, C. S., R., which is.-- "10.5 (1) A Government servant transferred to foreign service shall remain in the cadre or cadres in which he was included in a substantive or officiating capacity immediately before his transfer. He may be given such substantive or officiating promotion in those cadres as the authority competent to order promotion may decide. In giving promotion such authority shall take into account-
(a) the nature of the work performed in foreign service, (b)the promotion given to juniors in the cadre in which the question of promotion arises.
(ii) In any individual case the competent authority may grant a Government servant, outside his cadre or cadres but in his own line, such promotion as it considers he would have got had he not been transferred to foreign service."
10. It will show that a deputations can get promotion in his own line. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondents were Junior Clerks and they were promoted as Steno typists. The appellant was also qualified as a Steno typist as is proved from his appointment as Steno typist in the Census Organization on 1-3-1960. He should; therefore, get the benefit of his appointment as a Steno typist under the next below rule.
11. It has to be examined whether the post of Steno typist is in the line of a Junior Clerk. The appellant was a Junior Clerk when he proceeded on deputation. The next above post is that of a Senior Clerk and the Board of Revenue gave him promotion in absentia to this post. The post of Steno typist is to be filled by direct appointment under rule 5 (1) (d) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Ministerial Service Rules, 1963. Prior to this, there were no rules for the post of Steno typist, as this post did not exist before Integration. The Government representative explained to the Tribunal that the appointment to the post of Steno typist was made before the coming into force of 1963 Ministerial Service Rules from Junior Clerks by holding a test in shorthand and type--writing. The appellants never appeared in the test.
12. The appellant was sent on deputation on 29-12-1959 to the Office of Director of Census. The order at Appendix P-1 transferring the appellant also included a term that the interests of these officials who were sent on deputation will be safeguarded in the Office of Board of Revenue as a special case for the period of deputation. This was consistent with the general policy laid down under rule 4.13 of C. S. R. (Pb.), Vol. I, Part I and rule 10.5. In 1960, the actual practice of the department was to promote Junior Clerks of their office who were proficient in shorthand and typewriting. The appellant had this qualification as he eras appointed as a Steno typist in the Office of Director of Census on 1-3-1960. He was even promoted as a Stenographer on 2-10-1962. It proves that he was fully qualified to be appointedas a Steno typist. Had he not proceeded on deputation from the Board of Revenue, he would have naturally been selected for this post. It is just and fair that he should not be deprived of this promotion simply because his services were required in a sister organization and he was sent there in public interest. We are of the view that keeping in view the policy laid down in the above quoted provisions of the C. S. R. and the assurance given to the appellant for safeguarding his interests in the office of the Board of Revenue, it is imperative that he should not be deprived of his promotion as a Steno typist for which he was fully qualified. He should be deemed to have been appointed as a Steno typist from 5-3-1960 and as a Stenographer from 1-12-1965 when his next junior Mr. Nazar Hussain was so appointed and promoted respectively. The appeal is, therefore, accepted with no order as to costs.
13. S. No.NameDate of entry into serviceDate of Promotion as StenotypistDate of Promotion as Stenographer
1. 1 Mr. Nazar Hussain -17-7-58 5-3-60 1-12-65 2.2. Mr. Nasrullah Khan7-9-59 5-4-60 15-5-66 3.3. Mr. Zafar Ali Qureshi23-11-57 12-8-60 2-6-66 4.4. Mr. Fazal Kerala 23-9-58 20-8-60 19-1-67 5.5. Mr. Abdur Rauf, 9-9-57 13-10-60 1-6-68 6.6. Mr. Mohd. Yousaf Khan9-6-57 9-5-61 19-1-70 7.7. Mr. Mobd. Amid Siddiqui24-12-59 1-7-61 19-1-70 8.8. Mr. Sultan Ahmad13-10-60 16-3-61 Not yet 9.9. Mr. Atta Mohammad17-2-61 22-9-61 Promoted 10.10. Mr. Anwar Vincent21-8-58 26-3-62 As stenographs 11.11. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad Khan 1313-3-58 14-4-62 Graphers 12.12. Mr. Mohd. Jamil Irfani21-8-57 9-5-62 13.13. Mr. Khalil Ahmad Khan27-1-62 14-10-63 14.14. Mr. Nazir Hussain Gill16-9-60 28-4-64 15.15. Mr. Abdus Saeed Khan(on deputation) (on deputation)
14. 1616. Mr. Mohammad Rashid20-11-59 14-5-64 17.17. Mr. Rauf Ahmad Bhatti29-10-56 4-4-64 In dispute