' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). -Syed Sadiq Hussain Shah, Office of the Agricultural Engineer, Talagang, District Rawalpindi has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director Soil Conservation, Punjab Rawalpindi and Bashir Hussain, Office Superintendent, Agricultural Engineer Office, Talagang, Rawalpindi as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the appellant be declared senior to respondent No, 2 and thus promotion of respondent No, 2 to the post of Office Superintendent instead of promoting the appellant is illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent No, 2 were working in the Soan Valley Land Improvement Project, West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation, Talagang, District Rawalpindi as Senior Clerks. The Project Director, Soil Conservation, on 20th January, 1966 issued Office Order promoting certain officials as Assistants. In this office order the appellant and the respondent No, 2 both were promoted as Assistants. The contention of the appellant is that later on vide Order No, 184, dated 24th September, 1971 respondent No, 2 was reverted as Senior Clerk due to shortfall in the budget alongwith other staff but the appellant was kept intact as Assistant. About two months later respondent No, 2 gave an application on 17th November, 1971 to the Project Director contending that as the name of Raza Muhammad had been deleted from the reversion list, he being senior to the appellant, be allowed to continue as Assistant, w. e. f. 25th September, 1971. On this application the Project Director passed orders on 10th December, 1971 approving the request of respondent No, 2 but w. e. f. 1st November, 1971. Upon these orders respondent No, 2 was promoted under Office Order No, 240, dated 11th December, 1971 w. e. f. 1st November, 1971. That on 28th December, 1971 through another order No, 34, respondent No, 2 was re-instated on this previous post in supersession of Office Order No, 240, dated 11th December, 1971.
The respondent No, 2 was re-instated as Assistant from the date of his reversion, i,e, 24th September, 1971. The contention of the appellant is that this re-instatement of the respondent No, 2 as Assistant was not in order. There had been a break in the service of the respondent No, 2 as assistant as he was reverted as Senior Clerk in 1971, hence, the appellant is senior to respondent No,
2. It has also been contended by the appellant that order of the respondent No, 2 for allowing him to hold the current charge of the post of Office Superintendent is also illegal as the respondent No, 2 is not senior to the appellant. It has further been contended by the appellant that the respondent No, 2 for the first time was shown as senior to the appellant in the seniority list circulated by the Director, Soil Conservation vide letter No, 17-4/3/2609, dated 7th March, 1982. .He made a representation against the same and finally the Director, Soil Conservation has conveyed the decision to the Agricultural Engineer on 19th May, 1984 that the matter of seniority could not be reviewed. Hence this appeal.
4. We have beard the parties, i,e, Mr. Faiz Muhammad Sadiq, counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. G.
Humayun, District Attorney and Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi Advocate on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No, 2, Bashir Hussain was reverted from the post of Assistant as a Senior Clerk vide order, dated 24th September, 1971 and was re-promoted as Assistant vide order, dated 11th December, 1971 w. e. f. 1st November, 1971. Thus, there has been break in the service of the respondent No, 2 as Assistant and he is junior to the appellant. Through another order No, 34, dated 28th February, 1972 the Project Director re-instated the respondent No, 2 on his previous post in supersession of his order, dated 11th December, 1971. This order of the Project Director to re-instate the respondent No, 2 from the date of his reversion is illegal and incompetent as there was no vacancy of Assistant available and also there was no sanction for the said post. The learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that the appellant had been always under the impression that he was senior to the respondent No, 2 due to above reversion of the respondent No, 2 as senior clerk but another fact came to notice of the appellant when the seniority list was circulated by the Director, Soil Conservation Agricultural Department, Punjab Rawalpindi vide letter, dated 7th March, 1982 wherein the respondent No, 2 was shown senior to the appellant. After that he had been agitating for correction of his seniority but his seniority has not been corrected by the respondent No, 1 and has also ignored the appellant for the promotion to the post of Office Superintendent unlawfully. The appellant's counsel has prayed that on the principle of justice, fairplay and equity, the seniority list be set aside and the appellant be declared senior to the respondent No, 2 Bashir Hussain.
6 On the other hand the learned District Attorney has stoutly resisted the above claim of the appellant/appellant's counsel and has submitted that the appellant/appellant's counsel is requesting to set aside the impugned. Order No, 34, dated 28th February, 1972 of the Project Director through which the respondent No, 2 was re-instated on his previous post in supersession of Order No, 240, date& 11 th December, 1971 giving him the original date of his appointment as Assistant, the date from which he was reverted. It has been argued by the learned District Attorney that the appellant's counsel wants that this Tribunal should set aside the order, dated 28th February, 1972 passed in the year 1972, in the year 1984 i,e,, after a lapse of 12 years. As the appellant remained sleeping over, hence the appeal is hopelessly time-barred and it is not within the purview of this Tribunal to set aside the impugned order of 1972 in the year 1984. Even on merits the re-instatement order dated 28th February, 1972 re-instating the respondent No, 2, from the original date of his reversion as Assistant was passed by the competent authority and has been in the field till today as a legal and valid order, thus no exception can be taken against the same. The learned District Attorney has also referred to the parawise comments submitted by the respondents in extenso and relying on these 'parawise comments it has been submitted by him that the appellant had not agitated at the proper time even against the seniority list so circulated by the Director Soil Conservation, Rawalpindi on 7th March, 1982. Thus, the appellant is at fault for not agitating the issue at the proper time. Hence, the appeal of the appellant against the seniority list was rejected by the respondent correctly, validly and lawfully. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that this appeal fails on merits. It is hopelessly time-barred as well and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties. We are in agreement with the learned District Attorney that in the garb of seniority the appellant/appellant's counsel is asking, in the year 1984, to set aside the impugned Order No, 34, dated 28th February, 1972 of Project Director whereby the respondent No, 2 was re-instated to his previous post of Assistant in suppression of his Order No, 240, dated 11th December, 1971 i,e,, after a lapse of more than 12 years.
We not find any justification at this belated stage to interfere with the order dated 28th February, 1972 of the competent authority in re-instating the respondent No, 2 to the post of Assistant, from the date of his reversion. Thus, we consider that this case fails on merits and respondent No, 2 senior to the appellant. As far as the time limit of this case is concerned, we have carefully perused the parawise comments submitted by the respondent No,
1. Comments offered to pares. 4, 5 and ground (1) of the appeal are reproduced below :- '`Para.
4. Consequent upon the dissolution of W.P.A.D.C., the S.V.L.I.P. Was transferred to the Punjab Agriculture Department with effect from 1st June, 1972 and placed under the Director Agricultural Engineering, Faisalabad. Later the Project was placed under the administrative control of Soil Conservation, Directorate with effect from 1st June, 1974. There was a dispute as to whether the seniority of S.V.L.I.P., staff is to be maintained separately or merged with the staff of the Soil Conservation Wing. The Government desired to separately maintain the seniority of this staff.
Accordingly the separate seniority list was circulated vide this office letter dated 7th March, 1982.
The appellant was correctly shown junior to the respondent No, 2 in the said list. Earlier to the issue of this seniority list, on the appeal of another Assistant (Mr. Abdul Gbafoor Malik) who was born on the same cadre, the Director-General Agriculture (Field), Punjab, Lahore vide his letter No, 11760/4- 16- II/DAG/Estt., dated 31st October, 1977 (Annexure-V) also declared the appellant junior to respondent No,
2. This seniority was circulated by the Agricultural Engineer, Talagang among the officials concerned vide his letter No, Estt-12/16689- 92, dated 15th December, 1977 (Annexure VI) but the appellant did not come forward to raise any objection thereon."
"Para.
5. Denied. Further to para. 4, it is stated that the seniority list of ministerial staff of the defunct- S.V.L.I.P-, was sent to the Agricultural Engineer, Talagang vide this office letter No, 17.4/ E-3/2609, dated 7th March, 1982 for circulation amongst the individuals concerned as most of them were working in his office. The Agricultural Engineer, Talagang circulated the said list among the concerned officials (including the appellant) under proper signatures (Annexure-VII). Therefore, it is not correct that the said list was not circulated to the appellant. In this list the appellant was shown junior to respondent No, 2.
The mistakes/discrepancies were required to be pointed out, within 30 days of the issue of the above seniority, list but the appellant did not make any objection. As such the appellant was not justified to make appeal in 2/84. However, he was informed of the facts due to which his appeal was not considered (Annexure-VIII)."
"Ground (i) Denied. As stated in para. 5 above. The seniority list circulated vide this office letter, dated 7th March, 1982 was properly received by the appellant. But he did not make any appeal. As such the present appeal is time-barred.
' It is interesting to point out that the appellant was (and is still) himself dealing hand in the office of Agricultural Engineer, Talagang and the particulars of Assistants were prepared ,by him and on the basis of these particulars the seniority list was issued by this office. He was responsible for circulating the said list among the concerned officials. Therefore, he cannot say that he was unaware of the seniority list in question."
The above paras clearly show that the appellant failed to agitate the issue at the proper time against the seniority list so circulated by the respondent Department, thus, his appeal is time- barred as well.
8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is time-barred, fails on merits as well and is dismissed as such.
' There are no order as to costs.