1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the consolidated judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 23-12- 1984 disposing of four service appeals before it.
2. The petitioner joined service in the Food Department, Government of Punjab on 4-12-1972 on the post of Food Inspector by way of absorption after having been declared surplus on the abolition of the Agricultural Development Corporation where he was earlier employed. The contesting respondents were all employed in the Food Department initially as Card Checkers and then as Junior Clerks. In the year 1962 came to be enforced the following rules of service--
(i) The West Pakistan Food Department Ministerial Establishment (Regional Office) Recruitment Rules 1962 encadring region-wise the posts of (a) Senior Superintendent (b) Superintendent (c)
3. Senior Auditors (d) Assistants (e) Junior Auditors (f) Senior Clerks (g) Junior Clerks (h)
4. Stenographers (i) Stenotypist.
(ii) The West Pakistan Food Department (Subordinate Executive Establishment)
5. Recruitment Rules 1962 encadring region-wise the posts of---
(a) Assistant Food Controller, Assistant Ward Rationing Officer/Senior Inspector.
(b) Assistant Inspectors/Godown Store Keepers, Food grain Supervisors, Head Analysts, Senior Analysts, Junior Analysts.
6. Before the promulgation of these rules the Junior Clerks and Food Supervisors were in the same scale of pay and transferable inter se horizontally. There is nothing on the record or in the history of the case to indicate that after such encadrization regional cadres were established and allucations of named officials was made either by inviting options, or otherwise. Both the rules provided-- "The Establishment shall consist of regional cadres, members of one cadre being not eligible, save as provided in rule 10, for the appointment to a post in any other cadre of the Establish--ment". Rule 10 is not relevant and the word Establishment was given a very restricted meaning in the case of first rule as "ministerial establishment in the regional offices of the Department" and in the case of second rule as West Pakistan Food Department Subordinate Executive Establishment".
7. It was in this background of events that on the enforcement of these Rules in 1963, Ijaz Ahmad respondent appealed departmentally against his ouster from the executive establishment By an order, dated 29-6-1966 his appeal was allowed, his lien was transferred to the post of Food grain Supervisor and he was allowed to count his seniority as Food grain Supervisor from 28-2-1953.
8. Zulfiqar respondent also received a similar treatment. Then on 26-8-1967 these orders were reversed. This latter order was recalled on the advice of the solicitor. On 25-5-1972 the Government relaxed rules 5(b) and rule 12 of Executive Establishment Recruitment Rules to endorse this action.
9. Both these were granted pro forma promotion on 18-3-1970 from 22-1-1969 as Food Inspector.
10. Tauqir Ali Shah, a Supervisor, challenged the seniority allowed to these to by means of an appeal to the Tribunal established under Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunal) Ordinance, 1970. The Tribunal decided the matter on 24-1-1973 in the following words-- "It appears to us, therefore, that the order of 25-5-1972 has been made on incorrect assumptions and without proper appreciation of the material facts. It has been made in violation of the circular order of the Government, dated 14-7-1967. We, therefore, quash the order of 25-5-1972, and direct that the matter may be decided afresh keeping in view all the relevant factors. The relevant factors including the right of seniority of other Food grains Supervisors who had joined as such earlier than the to respondents.
11. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the order of respondent No. I, dated 25-5-1972 and direct that the question of absorption of respondents 3 and 4 on the executive side as well as the question of their seniority with retrospective effect on that side may be re-examined and decided in the light of the observations made by us."
12. By an order, dated 24-8-1983 Ejaz Ahmed was restored his seniority as Food grain Inspector. On 8- 11-1983 the same officer reversed that order and downgraded Ejaz Ahmed.
13. Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Latif and Ghulam Bari had also been allowed to change over, had been given pro forma promotions and seniority but were deprived of it in similar fashion. All appealed to the Service Tribunal and succeeded.
14. The Service Tribunal by the impugned judgment held that the earlier decision of the Appellate Tribunal, dated 24-1-1973 did not decide any question as it remanded the matter to the departmental authorities for decision afresh. It proceeded to examine the entire question afresh and recorded the following findings of fact-- "(i) The order of the Director Food passed on 24-5-1983 concluded within the department the controversy with regard to the seniority and there was no power left for further modification of that order.
(ii) On the basis of the pro forma promotion granted to the appellants before it they were entitled to the seniority given. The orders of pro forma promotion had been acted upon and salaries therefore paid.
15. (i.e) The appellants before the Tribunal were enjoying the seniority on the basis of legal orders passed by the competent authorities from the to the for the last 11 years and could not be deprived of it.
(iv) The undertaking given by one appellant (Ijaz Ahmed Bhatti) was never accepted, acted upon and formally given effect to and as such he could not in the matter of transfer to the Executive Branch be controlled by it.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on transfer to the Executive Branch the contesting respondents could not be given the benefit of services rendered as Card Checkers or as Junior Clerks nor could such transfer from one branch to the other take place at all. Secondly, theirs was not a case of pro forma promotion and they should not have been promoted so. The undertaking given by one of the respondents (Ijaz Ahmed Bhatti) should have been enforced against him. The Tribunal could not -by the impugned judgment set aside or depart from the earlier decision of the Appellate Service Tribunal.
17. The rules relied upon by the learned counsel provided "The Establishment shall consist of regional cadres, members of one cadre not being eligible save as provided in rule 10 for appointment to a post in any cadre of the Establishment."
18. "Establishment" has been defined to mean the ministerial establishment in the regional offices of the Department. The import of the rule is that transfer from one region to another regional cadre within the establishment shall not be made. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the officials serving prior to such caderization were after the enforcement of the rules allocated to various cadres from which they could not under this rule go out. Even the seniority list did not show the cadre seniority but they are all shown as officials working in a particular region.
19. It was in this background that the Government had been. sometimes after relaxation of the service rules and sometimes without it and on individual representation allowing allocation to one or the other and also granting the benefit of service already rendered and granting pro forma promotions with benefit of seniority and pay, etc. Without establishing that the contesting respondent stood allocated to a particular cadre their adjustment as such could not be objected to on the strength of the rules. As prior to the enforcement of the rules in 1962 there was no separation of cadre, prohibition of transfers inter se, the rules could take effect only after they had been assigned to the cadres either after inviting option or otherwise under the orders of the Government. We find that the orders of the competent authority permitting such transfers or allocations without denying them the benefit of seniority and Performa promotion did not on the facts of the case violate any law or principle of law nor was it outside the plenary powers of the Government. The contesting respondents having enjoyed the other benefits of such Performa promotions, it could not be undone by orders subsequently passed particularly so at the instance of the petitioner who joined the department at the level of Food Inspector in 1972. The earlier decision of the Service Tribunal concerned only the seniority and it was to be decided afresh by the department with no determinative finding with regard to it having been recorded by the Tribunal except to the extent that the whole question was re-opened. The relaxation of the rules made in favour of to contesting respondents was never recalled. It could be recalled only in consultation with the administrative department which had concurred in the relaxation, namely, Services and General Administration Department.
20. We find that the case involves no question of law of public importance such as may require further examination in this Court in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Hence leave to appeal is refused.