' ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER).-- In this contest of seniority the facts, briefly, are that the appellant Rana M. Anwar, was promoted to N.P.S.-16 and appointed as Assistant Security Officer w,e,f, 1-6-1976. Also, w,e,f, 1-6-1976, certain other persons were appointed as Assistant Security Officers by transfer. The persons appointed by transfer and still in service for purpose of this appeal are Messrs L.K. Jadoon, S.A. Siddiqui and S.T. Arif Fatimi.
2. Relying on rule 12(7) of the A.S.F. (Service) Rules, 1978, the appellant claims seniority over the transferees, named in para. 1 above. Rule 12(7) reads:- "If a person is appointed to a Grade by promotion and another by transfer on the same date, the person who is appointed by promotion shall rank senior to the person who is appointed by transfer."
3. A seniority list was circulated in 1978 wherein the appellant was shown junior to the transferees against whom he claims seniority. Aggrieved by his placement, which the appellant considered to be against the rules, he preferred an appeal with tile Tribunal after exhausting his departmental remedy. The said appeal was registered as Appeal No,27(K)/81. However, the appellant withdrew the said appeal in the light of Civil Aviation Department letter, dated 2-12-1981 wherein it was stated that the case of the appellant would be decided in the light of Government decision as and when received.
4. After waiting for some time the appellant against agitated his claim. In reply, the appellant received the letter, dated 21-6-1982 from the Department of Civil Aviation which is reproduced: "x x x
2. The case for restoration of seniority is under consideration of the Establishment Division. The officer may be informed accordingly."
5. Taking the above-quoted letter to be a final reply, the appellant came up in appeal again before the Federal Service Tribunal. His appeal was admitted for regular hearing on 1-2-1983 and it is being disposed of by this order.
6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The departmental representatives were also heard. Of the respondent officials, Mr. S.A. Siddiqui was the only one present and he was given a hearing.
7. It is an admitted position that the following transferees were appointed to Grade-16 as under:- L.K. Jadoon 1-1-1970 S.A. Siddiqui 1-1-1970 S.T.A Fatimi 11-6-1973 ' As against the above respondents, the appellant was promoted to Grade 16 w,e,f, 1-6-1976. It is true that if rule 12(7), already quoted and relied upon by the appellant, were pressed into service to the exclusion of other provisions of the A.S.F. (Service) Rules, 1978, dealing with the seniority, then the appellant has an unassailable case. But the Rules have to be and should be read as a whole so as to arrive at a balanced interpretation, particularly, where there is ambiguity or lack of clarity as in the present case. Viewed in this light, we shall quote Seniority Rule 12, sub-rule (2) which says:- "a person appointed to a Grade shall count his seniority from the date on which he is appointed to that Grade."
8. The reading of sub-rules (2) and (7) (of rule 12) together and NOT in isolation of each other, should leave no one in doubt that the respondents, having been appointed to Grade-16 from dates earlier than the appellant, must count their seniority accordingly. On transfer to the A .S.F w,e,f, 1-6- 1976 they would, therefore, bring their seniority in Grade-16 with them and be placed accordingly and senior vis-a-vis the appellant as has been done by the respondent department. It would be patently absurd even to assume that persons like the respondents appointed to Grade-16 years ahead of the appellant should lose their vested right of seniority just because sub-rule(7) of rule 12, read in isolation, says so! We are quite clear in our mind that sub-rule (7) would apply only to such cases where, everything being equal, the promotees shall rank senior to the transferees.
9. In view of the foregoing analysis, we have reached the conclusion that the appellant's claim of seniority against the respondent officials is misconceived. We have, therefore, no hesitation in dismissing the appeal.
9. No order as to costs.