' JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant, Muhammad Sharif Bhatti, joined as Stenotypist in the Telephone Department under the General Manager, C.T.R., Lahore, respondent No, 3, in 1962. He was confirmed as Stenotypist with effect from 19th February, 1962. Mr. Abdul Haq, respondent No, 5 herein, was also a Stenotypist under the respondent No, 3, having been confirmed with effect from 1st April, 1956. While both these officials were serving under the respondent No, 3, the Directorate of Coaxial Cable (Construction), T & T, Lahore, respondent No, 4, was created. The posts of Stenographers under respondent No, 4, were to be filled by direct recruitment. Respondent No, 5, applied therefor and was selected on 23rd November, 1970. He was relieved by respondent No, 3 and while relieving him, the following order was passed on 25th November, 1970 : "In compliance with General Manager, Northern Telecommunication Region, Lahore No, Staff/E 653/Steno/61, dated 25th November, 1970, Mr. Abdul Haq Stenotypist is hereby struck off the strength of this Division w,e,f, 25th November, 1970, afternoon, to report for further duties as Stenographer under Director, Coaxial Construction, T & T, Lahore, with reference to his letter No, D.C.C./E-3/28, dated 23rd November, 1970."
2. Respondent No, 5 remained serving under respondent No, 4, for nine years, when on 6th October, 1979, he made a representation to respondent No, 3 that he should be given seniority in his office as Stenographer. His representation was, however, rejected on 15th June, 1980. Prior to that, the appellant had been promoted from the post of Stenotypist to the post of Stenographer under respondent No, 3, with effect from 25th March, 1975. He was given Selection Grade with effect from 28th September, 1978 and confirmed in that grade on 22nd July, 1980.
3. By order dated 30th June, 1980, respondent No, 5 was re-transferred under respondent No, 3 and he took over on 1st July, 1980 as Stenographer. He made an application for being given Selection Grade which was rejected on 31st May, 1981. An appeal was made by respondent No, 5, which was accepted and the following order, dated 2nd May, 1982 was passed under the signatures of Assistant Deputy Director-General (Staff) of respondent No, 1 "Since Mr. Abdul Haq, Stenographer, has been transferred from Director, Coaxial Cable Construction, Lahore to C. T. R., Lahore in the interest of service, therefore, he should retain his seniority from the date of his appointment as Stenographer in the Director, Coaxial Cable Construction, Lahore."
Since originally, as Stenotypist, respondent No, 5 was senior to the appellant, the appellant apprehending his de-confirmation as Selection Grade Stenographer, on re-absorption of respondent No, 5, made an appeal on 26th May, 1982 to the Director-General, T&T Islamabad, respondent No, 1 herein and having received no redress, filed the present appeal before us on 30th May, 1982.
4. The appellant and respondent No, 5, as stated earlier, were confirmed Stenotypists under respondent No, 3, respondent No, 5 being senior to the appellant. When respondent No, 5 was sent to respondent No, 4, the order clearly indicated that his name was struck off the strength of respondent No,
3. This order was ab initio wrong, inasmuch as, respondent No, 5 being a confirmed Stenotypist under respondent No, 3 A and having not been confirmed as Stenographer under respondent No, 4, his lien under respondent No, 3, could not be terminated even with his own consent. However, respondent No, 5 kept silent and did not agitate that the order of striking off his name from the strength of respondent No, 3 was erroneous. That order remained in force till respondent No, 5 was brought back to serve under respondent No 3. At that time, the appellant was holding the post of Selection Grade Stenographer.
5. It is pertinent to note that respondent No, 5 having not been considered earlier for promotion under respondent No, 3, could not claim his seniority over the appellant, merely by virtue of the fact that he had been appointed earlier as Stenographer under respondent No,
4. The seniority of respondent No, 5 under respondent No, 4 has no relevance whatsoever with his seniority in the office of respondent No, 3.
6. According to the rules applicable in this behalf, a person promoted from a lower post to a higher post gets his seniority from the date of promotion. The appellant having been promoted to the grade of Stenographer with effect from 25th March, 1975 has to count his seniority from the said date. Respondent No, 5 having been appointed as Stenographer under respondent No, 3 on return from respondent No, 4, would get his seniority from the date he was appointed Stenographer under respondent No, 3, i. e. 1st July, 1980. The appellant cannot, therefore, be dislodged of his seniority, nor he can be reconfirmed on the return of respondent No, 5.
7. No doubt, the original order striking off the name of the respondent from the strength of respondent No, 3 was not valid, because he could hold lien on his post as long as he was confirmed as Stenographer under respondent No, 4, nevertheless, this does not mean that he would enjoy the rights of promotion even in absentia.
8. The appellant has prayed that respondent No, 5 be sent back to serve under respondent No, 4 and that the order, dated 2nd May, 1982, whereby respondent No, 5 was given seniority from the date of his appointment as Stenographer under respondent No, 4, be set aside. As far as his first prayer is concerned, we cannot compel respondent No, 3 to send back respondent No, 5 to respondent No,
4. However, the order of respondent No, 3 that respondent No, 5 shall retain his seniority as a Stenographer from the date he was appointed as such under respondent No, 4 cannot be upheld. That part of the order dated 2nd May, 1982 is therefore, set aside, and it is declared that while the appellant shall count his seniority in the grade of Stenographer from the date he was promoted i,e, 25th March, 1975 respondent No, 5 shall count seniority in the grade of Stenographer from 1st July, 1980 when he actually took over in that capacity under respondent No, 3.
9. The appeal is accepted as above. Parties to be informed accordingly.