' M. SALIMM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant, Hafeez Ahmad Munawar, Superintendent, Labour Department, filed this appeal on 24th February, 1977 and impugns order, dated 24th July, 1976 issued by respondent No, 2 whereby the order made by the Secretary, SGA & I. Department on 27th January, 1971 granting seniority to the appellant between serial Nos, 67 and 68 in the cadre of Assistants in the gradation list as it stood on 1st July, 1970 was withdrawn. Also impugned is the order of the Chief Secretary (respondent No, 1), dated 27th January, 1977 rejecting the representation of the appellant.
2. The appellant was appointed Junior Clerk in the Secretariat of the former Bahawalpur State on 1st June, 1947. He was promoted Senior Clerk on 3rd June, 1952 and confirmed as such on 23rd December, 1952. He was promoted Assistant on 17th December, 1962. Some time in 1969, the appellant represented that he be declared senior to Muhammad Anwar, respondent No, 3 who had been promoted senior clerk on 13th April, 1950 i. e. Earlier than the appellant, although he was junior to the appellant as junior clerk. On 27th January, 1971 the Government accepted the appellant's representation and ordered that :-
(a) the appellant's seniority in the gradation list of Assistants was fixed between serial Nos, 67 and 68, above respondent No, 3 ;
(b) the appellant was pro forma promoted as senior clerk, with effect from 13th April, 1950 the date when respondent No, 3 was promoted ;
(c) the appellant was pro forma promoted as officiating Assistant, w. e. f. 5th January, 1962 the date when respondent No, 3 was promoted as such ; and
(d) the appellant was not entitled to arrears of pay except for the difference of pay and allowances for the period he actually' promoted duties as senior clerk-Assistant.
' The appellant went to the High Court in writ against the last mentioned part of the order and on the petition being admitted to regular hearing, the Government reconsidered the matter and, on 27th January, 1971 though a substituted order, ordered that the appellant was entitled to full arrears.
Respondents Nos, 3 to 5, affected by this order, represented against it but their representation was turned down. In February, 1975 respondent No, 8 made another representation which was accepted in that, by an order, dated 24th July, 1976 the earlier order of 27th January, 1971 granting pro forma promotion to the appellant, was withdrawn. The appellant's representation against this new order was rejected on 28th August, 1976 and he then filed the present appeal.
3. The parties were heard at length. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Government could not undo its order of 27th January, 1971 which had remained operative for more than 5 years and which had been issued after due thought and consideration of all aspects involved including the writ petition in the High Court. Basically, that order was founded on the appellant's plea that when respondent No, 3 was promoted as Senior Clerk on 13th April, 1950 the appellant's case was not considered with him. Moreover, while making the impugned order the appellant had been condemned unheard. In addition the respondent was precluded from passing the impugned order on principles of locus poenitentiae, the order of 27th January, 1971 having taken due effect and offering no ground for withdrawal at this stage. On behalf of the respondents it was stated that the appellant had no cause for a grievance because the Government had the authority to put right vide order, dated 24th July, 1977 the wrong which had been mistakenly done through order, dated 27th January, 1971. The appellant had no justification to contest his seniority vis-a-vis respondent No, 3 because under the Integration Policy letter, dated 25th November, 1955 his seniority was fixed in the cadre of senior clerks in accordance with the prescribed formula, whereby his lien would be against the post of senior clerk and not against that of junior clerk which he claimed.
4. Quite apart from the grounds on which the parties based their respective stands, we are convinced that the focal point on which the matter hinges is the vested right which the appellant came to acquire during the five years or more when during which period the order o 27th January, 1971 held good. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the pay of the appellant in the various grades fixed as a result of the order, dated 27th January, 1971 stood protected under Article 178 of 1962 Constitution. In support of his contention PLD 1969 SC 407 has been cited to stress the application of the principle of locus poenitentiae. Also cited in this connection in case No, 235/745 of 1976 in re : Syed Saqlain Shah decided by this Tribunal, and the judgment of the former Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal reported as 1973 PLC (C S T 90 in re : Muhammad Sharif Ashraf.
We also note that the appellant got no opportunity to participate in the proceedings which culminated in the instance of the order, dated 24th July, 1976 and was thus not heard by the competent authority.
' In view of the above we feel that the respondent was not justified in withdrawing the order, dated 27th January, 1971 which had taken effect and had been acted upon for full five years. The impugned order and the order that followed on 27th January, 1977 are, therefore, held to be void and of no legal effect. Consequently, the appeal stands accepted without any order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.