1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-Three petitions seeking leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution have been filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 4-11-1982.
2. ' Two service appeals were filed, one by Mian Ghulam Bari and the other by Mahmood Ahmed and 8 others, all erstwhile employees of the Agricultural Development Corporation which was dissolved by Presidential Order-No, 5 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). The respondents who were the appellants before the Service Tribunal felt aggrieved by the refusal of the Finance Department of the Government of Punjab to protect their terms and conditions of service with regard to the pay and status consequent upon the dissolution of the 'Agricultural Development Corporation by President's Order No, V of 1972. They pressed into service Clause (b) of Article 4 of the Order which is reproduced hereunder :- "Transfer -of projects, etc. Of West Pakistan Corporation.-- Notwithstanding in the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961 (W. P. Ordinance XXIV of 1961), or in any law, agreement or contract for the time being in force, the President may, by order direct that -
(a) ..........
(b) the officers, advisers and employees of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation shall be transferred to, and appointed by, the new Provinces, the Central Government or other authorities. As the case may be, on the same terms and conditions applicable to them before the issue of such order."
3. ' Their case was that when the Corporation was dissolved they had in that hierarchy four posts, Agricultural Assistants being at the lowest step of the ladder in the scale of 275-500. Above them were the Farm Managers in the scale of 350-950 which the respondents enjoyed. Above them were the Assistant Directors in the scale of 450-1,000 and the next higher in rank was Deputy Director in the pay scale of 750-1,500.
4. ' In the Agriculture Department of the Government the Agricultural Assistants were in Class-III service enjoying the scale of 275-525 (N. P. S.-11) Above them were Extra-Assistant Directors of Agriculture in Class-II in the scale of 350-925. Above them were the Deputy Directors Class-I 750- 1,500. The respondents were all Farm Managers in the scale of 350-950 comparable or identical with that of Extra-Assistant Directors of Agriculture. They claimed not only protection for their pay scales but also similar adjustment in revision of pay scales and up-gradation of posts as were made available to those placed in the identical grade of pay in the Agriculture Department where they were to be appointed under Article 4 of the Order. Agricultural Assistants who were subordinates to them received such a treatment inasmuch as they were made into Class-II Officers of August, 1972 alongwith the Agricultural Assistants of the Agriculture Department who were also upgraded from Class-III to Class-II. The Agricultural Assistant were then placed into N. P.
5. S.-16 from August, 1972 and from 1-5-19 into N. P. S.47. The respondents were not afforded such a treatment. They were kept in the scale of 350-925 and were given N. P. S.-17 from 1-5-1977. Their counterparts in the Agriculture Department, on the other hand, in the same scale of 350-925 were made into Class-1 Officers giving the benefit of higher scale and better adjustment in N. P. S. (?) from 1972.
6. ' The respondents had at first instituted civil suits in 1978 but withdrew the same in 1981 and then filed service appeals before the Tribunal. Their case was that the Agriculture Department which was the Administrative Department and the Services and General Administration Department which was the co-ordinating department of the Government both agreed to the respondents being treated at par with identical officers in the Agriculture Department on the same footing as their subordinates in the Corporation were treated. But it was the Finance Department which did not extend them the facility and in the process by 1977 they stood at the same level at which their subordinates by process of upgradation were placed. The Service Tribunal took note of the fact that by lending fixity to the terms and conditions with regard to pay as on the date of dissolution the respondents had been denied the benefit of pay revision rules and the upgradations and this was not warranted as in the process they had been brought at par with their own erstwhile subordinates who had been in the meanwhile upgraded. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed their claim to be treated as Class-1 Junior and to be dealt with in the matter of pay revision as were dealt with the other officers in the Department.
7. ' The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that to give a particular class was the unqualified prerogative of the Government and no restrictions can be placed on it though it may manifestly operate unjustly and unfairly. It was also its case that what was protected was the pay and nothing more and in establishing the equivalence and granting them the benefit of Class-I Junior, the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction.
8. ' The third petition is by a private individual, Mushtaq Ahmed Saleem, who was enjoying Class-I1 in the Agriculture Department of the Government at the time of dissolution of Agricultural Development Corporation and whose post was upgraded and beneficially treated. His grievance was that he was not impleaded as party though he was a necessary party. The order affected him prejudicially as his seniority would get changed thereby, by inducting the respondents into his grade.
9. ' A preliminary objection has been taken to all these petitions that they are hopelessly time-barred, as the order was passed by the Tribunal on 14-6-1983 and the appeals were filed in November, 1983. The explanation given by the petitioners is that it was not informed of the decision of the Tribunal and as soon as they came to know of it they immediately and within limitation filed the appeals.
10. ' As regards the merits of the decision it has been contended that in terms of protection granted to the respondents under Article 4 of the Order they could not claim the status of Class-I Junior as was enjoyed by those in the Agriculture Department in the same pay scale because that was not guaranteed and that was a prerogative power of the Governor.
11. ' It is to be noted at once that the dispute in the service appeals preferred by the respondents was essentially one with regard to the protection of pay scale, and its being properly reflected at all the material stages of revision of pay and its fixation in N. P. S. Their claim to Class-I Junior at a time when the classes in services stood abolished by Punjab Civil Servants (Changes in Nomenclature of Service and Abolition of Classes) Rules, 1974 was only to pinpoint the nature of their grievance and the nature of the reliefs that they were seeking. It is not denied that the post of Farm Manager was higher to that of Agricultural Assistants. It is also not disputed that their pay scales were indentical with that of Extra-Assistant Directors of Agriculture in the Department. In the process of Pay Revision Rules the scale of Rs, 350-925 in the department was given a preferential treatment than the same scale of pay of the respondents and the only distinction made for this purpose was on account of their having been employees of the erstwhile Agricultural Development Corporation.
12. The first Pay Revision Rules were enforced on the 2nd of June, 1972 though they had for certain purposes effect from 1st of March, 1972. It was, therefore, after the induction of these Farm Managers into the Department that this revision of pay scales took place. The respondents were denied the benefits of Pay Revision Rules of 1972, and also of the beneficial treatment in pay scales extended to their counter-parts (Pay Scalewise) in the Agriculture Department. They were given the benefit of N. P. S. 17 from 1-5-1977 ironically, the date from which their erstwhile subordinates were given N. P. S.
17. This manifestly unjust treatment was set right by the Tribunal by equating them in the matter of.
13. Pay scale and , status with those who were holding the identical pay scales in the Agriculture"
14. Department. In granting such a relief the Tribunal has not exceeded jurisdiction nor any question of law of public importance such as may require further examination in this Court arises.
15. ' As regards the third petition of a civil servant, it is based on seniority and prospect of promotion, his own vis-a-vis the successful respondents ; if the Tribunal's order remains in the field. Just as the respondents could not object to his being given a better pay sealed and a higher status notwithstanding that he was in the same pay scale as the respondents, similarly he cannot object to the respondents being given the same benefits. The stages of promotion and the prospects of promotion are not matters of vested interest' in service.
16. ' We find no merit and the three petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal refused.