' Mian Riasat Ali, Stenographer, Lower Chenab Canal West Circle, Canal Offices, Faisalabad had made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Canal Offices, Faisalabad, Superintending Engineer (Headquarters), Office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Canal Offices, Faisalabad, Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Canal Offices, Faisalabad and Mr. Muhammad Ikram Cbishti, Superintendent, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle Canal Offices, Faisalabad as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders of respondent No, 1, dated 17th October, 1981, No, 2 dated 8th August, 1981 and No, 3, dated 25th November, 1976 are against the rules and facts of the case. He has prayed for setting aside of these orders and declaring him senior to Mr. Muhammad Hiram Chishti, respondent No, 4.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Mian Riasat Ali, was promoted as Stenographer by the Superintending Engineer, Quetta Irrigation Circle, Quetta w. e. f. 27th June, 1967 and was confirmed as such w. e. f. 21st December, 1970. In consequence of disintegration of One Unit, the appellant was repatriated from Baluchistan Province to Punjab Province and thus joined as Stenographer in the office of Superintending Engineer, Lower Chenab Canal West Circle, Faisalabad on 1st August, 1973. On his repatriation to Faisalabad, the appellant became a regular member of the cadre of Stenographers (Circle) of Faisalabad Irrigation Region. Respondent No, 4, Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chishti was already working in the Faisalabad Irrigation Region. He was promoted as Stenographer in the office of Superintending Engineer, Lyallpur Drainage Circle, Lyallpur w. e. f. 15th September, 1966 and he was confirmed w. e. f. 1st June, 1973 a date prior to the repatriation of the appellant from Baluchistan Province to Punjab Province. In 8/81 the appellant came to know that Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chishti, Respondent No, 4 was being taken as senior to the appellant. The appellant submitted an application dated 8th August, 1981 (Annexure 'B') to Respondent No, 2 requesting for declaring him senior to Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chishti. The request of the appellant was rejected by Respondent No, 2 vide his order, dated 8th August, 1981. The appellant preferred an appeal to Respondent No, 1 which was rejected by Respondent No, 1 vide his order, dated 17th October, 1981. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant while arguing the case of the appellant, has objected to the date of continuous appointment viz. 15th September, 1966 assigned to Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chishti, Respondent No, 4, which according to him was not correct. He submitted that Mr. Matlub Hussain, Stenographer presently working in regional office was appointed in Drainage Circle as Stenographer. His services were terminated due to misconduct and Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chishti was appointed as Stenographer w. e. f. 15th September, 1966 against a vacancy caused by the dismissal of Mr. Matlub Hussain. Mr. Muhammad lkram Chishti continued to work as such till 1976 when Mr. Matlub Hussain, Stenographer was re-instated by the order of the Honourable High Court on 26th November, 1976. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on this the Respondent No, 4 i,e,, Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chishti should have been reverted and he should not have been shown as in continuous service as Stenographer from 15th September, 1966. Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chishti should have been deconfirmed and reverted to his original post as Camp Clerk on re-instatement of Matlub Hussain. Stenographer on 26th November, 1976. In view of the above arguments, he submitted that the actual date of continuous appointment of Mr. Muhammad lkram Chishti, Respondent No, 4, would be the date from which Mr. Matlub Hussain was accomodated on his re-instatement in the regional office in 1977 and not from the earlier date when the Respondent No, 4 was appointed as Stenographer -in 1966. Thus the appellant was far senior to the Respondent No, 4 and he should be declared senior to him. Controverting these arguments, Mr. Masud Ahmed Riaz, the counsel for the Respondent No, 4 and learned District Attorney representing respondents Nos, 1 to 3, made their reliance on impugned order, dated 8th August, 1981 of Superintending 'Engineer (Headquarters) Irrigation Region, Faisalabad sebmitting that this impugned order is a detailed order wherein the facts, pros and cons of this case have been discussed in detail by the Superintending Engineer while rejecting the appeal of the appellant. Keeping in view this well-considered and detailed order of Respondent No, 2, the appellant has no case on any ground whatsoever.
5. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the parties, gone through the parawise comments submitted by the Respondents and the other material available on the record.
I have gone very carefully through the impugned order No, 10596/AII/81, dated 8th August, 1981 (Annexure 'C') of 'Respondent No, 2, which has explained the case in detail on the representation of the appellant. The plea put forward in the arguments by the learned counsel of the appellant has already been dealt in detail in this impugned order and it has been fully justified that the date of continuous appointment as Stenographer of Mr. Muhammad Ikram Ghishti, Respondent No, 4 was 15th September, 1966 and that of the appellant, Mian Riasat Ali, was 27th June, 1967. Thus Respondent No, 4 is senior to the appellant and the confirmation of Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chishti as Stenographer was properly done by the competent authority. The paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the said impugned or der addressed to the appellant are reproduced below for elucidation : "There are five Circle Stenographers elegible for consideration for the promotion to the rank of Circle Superintendents. They are :- S. No. Name of StenographerDate of AppointmentCircle to which as Stenographer.presently attached.
1. Mr. Muhammad Ikram15-9-1966Drainage Chishti.
Circle
3. Mr. Riasat Ali27-6-1967L. C. C West
3. Mr. Muhammad Rafique22-1-1968L. C. C. East
4. Mr. Ahmed Sher1-3-1975Q. B. Link
5. SCARP I Circle Post lying vacant.
(1) From the above it stands establised that Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chishti with a longer service as Stenographer stands the senior-most. As per your own statement you are appointee of 27th June, 1967. The other Stenographers mentioned above are much junior to Mr. Chishti or to yourself. As such the seniority of Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chishti over others stands established.
(2) Mr. Matlub Hussain, Stenographer was holding a temporary post when he was removed from service and was, therefore, consequently re-instated by the Hon'ble High Court in his same capacity. As such when he was never holding a substantive past anywhere including Drainage Circle then the question of holding a lien in Drainage Circle does not arise. This aspect has already been duly considered in this office and Mr. Matlub was never considered a substantive appointee or a confirmed Stenograber throughout.
(3) Mr. Chishti was confirmed properly by the then competent authority when Mr. Matlub Hussain, a temporary Stenographer, was no more in service. The aspect of deconfirmation of Mr. Chishti was duly considered in January 1980 in the light of authorities in vogue and there was found no justification to deconfirm him. As such his appointment/confirniation as a Stenographer in Drainage Circle stands established.
6. The order reproduced above is a well-considered and well-reasoned order and no exception can be taken to it, under the law. Thus, I hold that Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chishti, Respondent No, 4 is senior to the appellant and there is no merits in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
' There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.