The Government of West Pakistan issued a "Seniority List" of certain Officers of the Food Department on 21-2-1969, wherein M. H. Minhas (respondent No. 4) was shown as senior to the present petitioner Mien Noor Ahmad. The name of the said respondent appeared at No. 2 whereas petitioner figured at No. 4. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Government which was rejected on 31-8-1970/1-9-1970, where-after he filed an appeal to the Civil Services (Appellate)
Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore, under section 8(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunal)
Ordinance (IV of 1970), but without any success as the same was dismissed by the said Tribunal on 15-7-1971: Against the aforesaid, the petitioner has come up In writ petition to this Court.
2. Seniority of the Officers after Integration was to be fixed under paras. 14 and 16 of the Government of West Pakistan Letter, dated 25-11-1955, which read as follows:- "14. For the purposes of integration, the seniority of all pre-unification officers will be determined with reference to the date of continuous appointment substantive or otherwise to the grade as defined in paragraph 16 below. In case, to officers are bracketed together owing to their appointments taking effect from the same date, the older officer will be given seniority over the other. The orders in this paragraph are subject to the proviso that the inter se seniority of officers belonging to the same integrating unit will not be altered. Thus if in the Former Punjab, an Officer was placed above another officer with longer continuous officiation in the Grade, the former will be placed first on the integrated list with reference to the date of his continuous officiation. The latter officer will be placed immediately below him. The sub---rule will apply if the former officer had been placed in the Punjab above more than one officer with longer continuous officiation. In that case, these officers would go immediately below him in the integrated list as a group and in the same order.
16. For the purpose of the to preceding paragraphs, "GRADE" may be defined, broadly, as consisting of a number of posts of the same category in the same class of service carrying the same duties and responsibilities and in a common scale of pay, or, in case of officers belonging to different integrating units, in comparable scales of pay."
3. The Tribunal has held (1) that the petitioner joined service on 1-7-1952 as a District Procurement Officer (herein--after called as D. P. O.) in erstwhile Bahawalpur State in the grade of Rs. 250-15- 380/15-440 ; (ii) that in Bahawalpur State there was no District Food Controller (hereinafter called D. F. C). The post of this nomenclature existed only in the Punjab ; (i.e) that after integration the post of D. P O. Was Integrated with the post of (a) District Food Controller prevalent in the Punjab, namely, D F. C. ; (D) District Manager in Sind and (c) District Supply Officer in N: W. F. P. (iv) That after Integration, the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of a District Food Controller (of Punjab) which was Rs. 250-20-450/ 25-750 (effective from 14-10-1955).
4. As regards respondent No. 4, (a) the Tribunal has held that he was recruited as an Assistant Food Controller in the Punjab in the pay scale of its. 150-10-150 on 29-7-1956. (b) He was promoted as a Central Food-grains Officer (hereinafter called as CFGO) on 6-12-1947 in the pay scale of Rs.200- 15-275/15-470/15-5,00/20-600. This pay scale was revised Notification, dated 28-12-1951 so as to be effective from 1-1-1950 to Rs. 250-10-450/30-650/25-750. This post is stated to be a Class II Post.
The Tribunal then gave history of the various posts which respondent No. 4 had been holding thereafter with their respective scales of pay. (d) The post of C. F. G. O. Was latter on re-designated as an Assistant Controller of Inspection. Respondent No. 4 was holding this post under its new nomenclature with effect from the 16th of July 1960.
5. It was argued before the Tribunal that on 1-7-192 the petitioner was a District Procurement Officer (D. P. O) in Bahawalpur State which post after Integration was equated or integrated with that of a D. F. C. (of Punjab), whereas respondent No. 4 on that date was only a Central Food-grain Officer (C. F. G. O.) in the Punjab and was then holding a post of a lower rank and, therefore, he should be shown junior to the petitioner. It was argued- that once the Post of a D. P. O. Was integrated or equated with that of a D. F. C. That Integration or equation was to be considered retrospective as well. The Tribunal rejected this submission and held that comparability of grades for finding the date of officiation in same class or type of service, for fixing seniority, was a separate thing from Integration or equation of any Post after 14-10-1955. In this way, the Tribunal held that on 1-7-1952 respondent No. 4 was in a grade comparable to that of the petitioner and since respondent's date of continuous officiation was prior (that is it was with effect from 1-1-1950) in that Grade, therefore, he was senior.
6. The Tribunal further held that on that date the class of service of the contestants before it was the same observing :- "In respect of duties and responsibilities, no particular distinction has been pointed out to us. We have been apprised of the duties of the District Food Controller, but not of the duties of the Central Food-grains Officers . . . .There does not appear to be any material difference in the duties and responsibilities except to the extent that the District Food Controller is a District Officer, while the Central Food grains Officer is assigned to the Central Office of the Food Department."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the above-mentioned contentions before me and has argued that once the Post of a D. P. O. (of Bahawalpur State) is integrates or equated with that of a D. F. C. (in the Punjab), then It means that the said equation or integration was right from the the when the petitioner joined the service or in other words was retrospective and in this way any officer who in Punjab was lower in rank to a D. F. C., could not compete in seniority with the petitioner. The contention has no force. Integration or equation of posts was prospective and not retrospective and was to be with effect and onward from 14-10-1955 and not from any backward date. For purpose of fixing seniority therefore, the things which were to be kept in view were. Firstly, what was the date from which an employee was continuously officiating secondly what was the post on which he was so officiating 7 thirdly, which were other Posts within ail grade comparable to that of the competing employees and, fourthly,~ was the nature of duties of competing servants same or similar. The Tribunal has kept all these aspects in view and has held that with effect from 1-1-1950, respondent No. 4 was serving in that Trade which was comparable to that of the petitioner and in which grade the petitioner entered only on 1-7-1952; i.e., much later than respondent No. 4. It has also held that the nature of service of both the contestants was same or similar and both belonged (e.g., on 1-7-1952) to the same type or class of service and since the respondents period of service was longer, therefore, he was senior. It was not shown to the Tribunal, nor to me that the nature of duties of a District Procurement Officer in erstwhile Bahawalpur State were higher or different from that of a Central Food grains Officer re-designated later on in Punjab as Assistant Controller of Inspection. The petitioner should, therefore, be thankful that onward from 14-10-1955, the post of a D. P. O. (of Bahawalpur) has been integrated or equated with that of a D. F. C. Of the Punjab, but he should not extend his claim further to claim seniority from backward date simply on this count. When there were other persons in same or similar service in the Punjab within a grade of pay comparable to that of the petitioner, then if he joined the service later, he will have to rank junior to them. The order of the Tribunal thus is unexceptionable and cannot be interfered with.
Learned counsel, to say with respect, is confusing the concept of integration of various posts with the subject-matter of seniority which despite the integration is to be regulated by and decided on different rules and principles.
8. Before parting with this case, I may mention that there, is a serious doubt as to whether the writ petition due to the provisions of sub-clause (b) of sub-Article 3 of Article 98 of the Constitution can be maintained in this Court against the orders of the Tribunal. On this point several writ petitions stand admitted, but in the instant case since there was nothing on merits, therefore, I have not admitted this writ petition and leave the point hereinbefore mentioned to be dealt with later in some other appropriate case.
9. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.