' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Sarwar Hayat Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Additional Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and 32 others as mentioned in Annexure 'A/1', as respondents.
2. By virtue of thisl appeal, he has prayed that the appellant be placed at serial No, 68 of the seniority list corrected upto 30th June, 1981, by accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned seniority list in so far as it relates to the appellant and the respondents No,2 to 32.
3. Brief facts of the case are that in seniority list issued in June, 1981, and corrected upto 30-6-1981, by respondent No, 1, the appellant has been shown as junior to the respondents whereas by virtue of his appointment as Naib-Tehsildar from 6-2-1982, the appellant was senior to the respondents and entitled to be placed at serial No, 69 of the impugned seniority list. It may be mentioned here that he was declared junior in the list of 30-3-1974 and he kept on making representations against the same but could not succeed. Meanwhile the appellant was promoted as Extra Assistant Commissioner and has once again come up before us with the same grievance.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. The facts of the matter are that the appellant was selected by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan as Naib-Tehsildar and he started service from' 5-6-1962. Subsequently he was transferred to Sargodha, at his own request on 24-12-1968. In the first instance the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, assigned the seniority with reference to the date of his appointment after passing the departmental examination on 19-1-1966. The appellant aggrieved against the said assignment of the seniority in 1970, but could not succeed in his claim.
6. From the perusal of the record of this case, it has been established that the appellant was selected 'A' class' Naib-Tehsildar in Multan Division with effect from 16-4-1960 and he could legitimately claim his seniority from the said date in the said Division. When the new Division of Sargodha was created the appellant himself made a request for his transfer to the said Division which was so accepted. The law on this point is very clear that if a civil servant wants to change his cadre of service, he would be placed at the lowest position in the seniority of the new cadre to which he is allowed to join and he would be shown junior most in the said seniority list of that cadre. The appellant himself went to the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal, in the year 1970, in which a number of respondents now impleaded were also impleaded as such including the Commissioner of Sargodha. The learned Tribunal in the concluding paragraph of its judgment held that the appellant was transferred at his own request to Sargodha Division on 24-12-1968, thus it was a transfer at his own request and according to the Government instructions, if a person got his transfer to a different cadre, he would be placed junior. Another attempt was made by the appellant before the Board of Revenue with the same request but the Board of Revenue also turned down his plea and held that as he was transferred at his own request to the new cadre, therefore, he would not be given the benefit of his earlier service in the seniority of the newly-created Division.
Learned counsel for the appellant has laid lot of stress that as the order of transfer to Sargodha do not expressly mention that the appellant would be placed junior most in the seniority list of Sargodha Division, due to such request of transfer, therefore, his earlier service rendered in Multan Division be not sliced away. We have no dispute with the proposition over the reading of the said order, which does not disclose the same but the Government instructions on the point are very clear that a person who gets himself adjusted to A a different cadre, would be liable to be placed junior in the new cadre. This being the rule laid down, the mere omission of this observation, in the said order of his transfer to Sargodha Division, in no way benefits him and we are not pursuaded to accept this omission as a lacuna, which would vitiate the established rules on this point duly considered by the Board of Revenue as well as by the Punjab Appellate (Service) Tribunal and was upheld against the appellant as such.
7. We are also fully aware of the fact that the appellant was shown junior in 1974 according to his own admission in the appeal and made a representation against the same, but failed to seek remedy before this Tribunal and has only chosen to come before it in the year 1982, thus it would be definitely an appeal, hopelessly time-barred taking in consideration an established fact that the gradation list was published in 1981 and the appellant had a right to file appeal against the same, but the same would also be time-barred by a number of months.
8. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal both as without being any merit as well as time- barred. There will be no order as to costs.