' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Mr. Mujeeb Ahmad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned Order No, SO(S-III) (S & GAD)13(77)/70, dated 21/28th November, 1981 be set aside and respondent No, 1 be directed to consider the absorption of the appellant as for good and irreversible ; and respondent No, 2 be directed to allow the appellant the Secretariat Scale of Pay of Assistant.
' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Mr. Mujeeb Ahmad, was serving as Assistant in the Directorate of Aided Technical Projects, Education Department at the time of dissolution of One- Unit with pay scale of Rs, 175-350. In 1970, on dismemberment of One-Unit, this Directorate was abolished and some work of this Project was passed on to the Education Department in the Punjab Secretariat. The petitioner was placed in the surplus pool pending absorption. The surplus pool was looked after by the Welfare Wing of SGA & I Department of the Government who were charged with their responsibility of securing placement of the officials in the surplus pool in the various departments of Government according to their requirement. The appellant was temporarily absorbed and appointed in the Punjab Civil Secretariat for posting in the Education Department, Foreign Aid Section, on the explicit condition that he would draw pay in his own pay scale. The appellant was ordered to carry out his this assignment in his own pay and scale. Later on, the appellant was regularly absorbed in the Bureau of National Reconstruction by the Welfare Wing, SGA & ID, as previously he was temporarily absorbed in the Education Department in his own pay and scale. To this, the appellant felt aggrieved ; as according to the appellant, he should have been absorbed as Assistant in the Punjab Secretariat in 1970, on the dissolution of One-Unit and that his absorption in the Bureau of National Reconstruction subsequently was contrary to the rules. He made representations to this effect but his request was not acceded to. He also made a petition to the Punjab Vigilance Commission which was also dismissed vide Punjab Vigilance Commission order, dated 24th March, 1981 in Case No, 17/S & GAD/LE/80. The appellant made another appeal to S & GAD which was rejected vide their order, dated 21/28th November, 1981 mentioning that the issue was considered more than once and rejected, the appellant had no case and was directed not to make further representations in this behalf and case he considered as closed. Hence this appeal.
4. The appellant has argued this case on the main plea that absorption in the Education Department on the dismemberment of One-Unit was a regular one and considering it tem porary and in his own pay scale was misconceived, unlawful and not in accordance with the circulars/ instructions issued by the S&GAD on the subject. He quoted and referred to such circulars, instructions also judgments of this Tribunal in some cases as referred to in detail in his appeal. The appellant prayed that keeping the facts and rules narrated by him, be stood regularly absorbed as Assistant in the Punjab Secretariat in 1970 on the dissolution of One-Unit and prayed that the respondent be directed to treat him as Assistant absorbed on regular basis for all purposes from the date of his absorption in the Education Department in the year 1970. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney took up the legal objection that the case is time barred. He submitted that the appellant made representations to the S & GAD which were not accepted.
Finally his case was also considered by the Punjab Vigilance Commission and a definite decision was taken by them on 24th March, 1981. After this date, even if full latitude for condonation of delay, is given to the appellant, even then the appellant should have come to this Tribunal within one month of this order, dated 24th March, 1981 but again the appellant made representation to S & GAD which was rejected on 21/28th November, 1981 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the issue had already been considered more than once and rejected and the appellant had no case whatsoever. This makes clear that there was no justification for making any such representation after the decision of the Punjab Vigilance Commission. The appellant had filed his appeal to this Tribunal on 16th December, 1981. Thus this appeal is time-barred by about 8 months and is not main made to the decision made by the Punjab Vigilance Commission. Where the appellant was himself working, his this very plea has been dealt at length by the Punjab Vigilance Commission and in their well-considered and detailed order, it has mentioned that the appellant had no case and his petition was dismissed. The learned District Attorney while concluding his arguments submitted that the appellant has no case on merits as well as it is time-barred.
5. We have considered view points of the parties consulted the relevant record and are of the definite opinion that the appellant had no choice and decided to make another representation to S & GAD when his petition was dismissed by the Punjab Vigilance Commission because he had already exhausted his right of representations with the S & GAD previous to that. Thus he should have filed his appeal with this Tribunal within one month of decision of the departmental authorities prior to that or at least within one month of the order of Punjab Vigilance Commission, dated 24th March, 1981. Thus we hold that the appeal is time-barred by 8 months and is not maintainable. The appellant has also not given convincing reasons in his application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for requesting us to condone the delay.
6. As regarding merits, we have perused carefully all the pros and cons of this case and have also gone through the decision of the Punjab Vigilance Commission, dated 24th March, 1981 and refer last 4 paras. Of their decision for ready reference.
"The entire sequence of events makes it patently clear that this adjustment in the Education Department of the Secretariat was a temporary make-shift arrangement from which no claim could arise in favour of the petitioner and in support of his claim that he would be deemed to have been properly absorbed in the Education Department of the Secretariat of the Punjab, after the Dismemberment of One-Unit.
' The petitioner is proved to have been properly absorbed in the Bureau of National Reconstruction which was subsequently merged in the Directorate of Public Relations. It has not been shown that his absorption in the Bureau of National Reconstruction caused him any loss or was it against any Rules. By his mere stay in the Education Department of the Government of Punjab, after the dissolution of One-Unit, in a temporary capacity and in his own pay scale does not confer a right on him to claim his proper absorption in the Education Department of the Secretariat as an Assistant. He properly belongs to the Directorate of Public Relations and all service benefits accrue to him legitimately from his service in that Directorate.
' His petition is accordingly dismissed as no administrative Excess has been proved to have been committed against him.
' Parties may be informed accordingly."
7. We have also independently looked into this case and are in agreement with the above conclusion of the Punjab Vigilance Commission and are of the considered opinion that his absorption in the Education Department on Dissolution of One Unit was in a temporary capacity, in his own pay and scale, which did not confer a right on him to claim his regular absorption in the Education Department of the Secretariat as an Assistant he legitimately belongs to the Directorate of Public Relations and all service benefits accrue to him from his service in that Directorate.
8. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed, being without any merits and also not maintainable as being time barred.
' There will be no orders as to costs.