1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-This is all appeal by Mr. Zafar Hussain, Stenographer, in the Office of Chief Engineer Irrigation, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur under section 4(1) of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance. 1969, whereby he seeks to establish his seniority over Abdul Ghafoor Sadiq, respondent No. 2, Stenographer in the Office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur.
2. Mr. Zafar. Hussain is present along with Mr. Masood Riaz, Advocate. On behalf of the Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer, Mr. Mobushar Hussain, Office Superintendent, is present. Abdul Ghafoor Sadiq, respondent No. 2 is present in person.
3. The seniority is in dispute in the rank of Stenographer.
4. The appellant joined the office of Superintending Engineer, Lower Chenab Canal Circle as Junior Clerk on 19-4-50. He was provisionally selected and appointed as Steno-typist on 28th June 1960.
5. He was transferred to the office of Chief Engineer,s Lahore on 6th June 1961, and again as a result of reorganisation of Irrigation Department was transferred to the office of Chief Engineer, Bahawalpur on 1-5-1962. On the 28th May 1962, the Chief Engineer ordered that a test be held on 29th May 1962, for Steno-typists, which should be taken by the appellant and respondent No. 2. The appellant represented that as he had already passed a test, he should be exempted from taking tile test, and he should be granted an exemption. His request was accepted. The appellant was promoted as Stenographer on 26th April 1968, and continues as such. As respondent No. 2 was declared senior to him, he appealed against his seniority, but his appeal was rejected by the Chief Engineer on 11th March 1970. In the seniority lists, dated 1-5-1969, 18-7-1970 and 22-7-1970, respondent No. 2, having been shown senior to the appellant, he has moved this Tribunal to establish his seniority.
6. Abdul Ghafoor Sadiq, respondent No. 2, joined as Junior Clerk is the office of Superintending Engineer at Rahim Yar Khan in Khan in the former Bahawalpur State on 6-7-1949, and was confirmed from 1-3-1951. He was promoted as officiating Steno typist after undergoing a test on 4-4-1959. The appointment of bath the appellant and respondent No. 2 as Steno-typists was provisional until further orders. From 19-4- 1962, respondent No. 2 had proceeded on two months leave and as he did not take the test ordered by the Superintending Engineer to be held can 29th May 1962, he was reverted as Junior Clerk on 31st May 1962, by order of the Superintending Engineer Headquarters. Respondent No. 2 represented against his reversion, and the order of reversionwas set aside by the Chief Engineer on 24th August 1962. Respondent No. 2 was allowed to join the regional office, Bahawalpur as Officiating Steno- typist. He was sanctioned leave for four months and ten days from 29th April 1962 to 28th August 1962, as Steno-typist. He was confirmed as Steno--typist w. e. f. 1-5-1962. He was promoted as Stenographer on 1-3-1958 and has been assigned 1-5-1962 as pro forma date of promotion as Stenographer. As such his date of promotion as Stenographer is earlier than the date of promotion of the appellant, and he is entitled to rank senior to him under rule 9(1)(b) of the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Ministerial Service (Regional Offices) Rules, 1962.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks to establish the seniority of the appellant over respondent No. 2 on the ground that when he was promoted as Stenographer, he exercised his option under Note 11 to rule 4.4. CSR, Vol. I, Part I to defer his promotion to 1-6-1968, and his pay was fixed in the time scale of Stenographer w.e.f. 1-6-1968F. N., under rule 4.4 (1), Vol. I, Part I read with footnote II of the said rule. Since he exercised his option to postpone his date of drawing pay in the scale of Stenographer from 1-6-1968, it is argued on behalf of the appellant that his promotion should be counted from that date and reliance is further placed on the instruction No. SO XII (S&GAD)-2-110/63, dated 30th March 1964, which is to the following effect:- "It is for the optee to consider the effect of his postponement of promotion on his seniority and if he chooses to postpone it, he shall have the consequences of such postponement of his seniority. He cannot later on claim that he should be deemed to have been promoted from an earlier date than that on which he actually took over."
8. The above instructions do not help the appellant was according to the instructions the seniority is to count from the date of taking over, because the rule of seniority is the date of continuous appointment. We have ascertained the fact and found that respondent No. 2 actually took over on 1st March 1968 and did not postpone his taking over to 1-6-1968. Thus his date of actually continuous officiation is 1-3-1968, which is earlier than the date of appellant. Indeed the pro for a date of appointment assigned to the respondent No. 2 bong 1-5-1962, he is senior to the appellant on the basis of the rule of seniority provided in rule 9(1)(6) of the Rules.
9. For the reasons stated above, there is no force in this appeal, which is dismissed with no orders as to costs-