ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHARY (MEMBER). --Muhammad Aslam Hayat, Statistical Officer has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 14/19-11-1984 be set aside and the appellant be allowed to continue working as Statistical Officer in B.P.S.17.
3. Brief facts of the case that the appellant while working as Statistical Investigator was promoted as Statistical Officer temporarily in N.P.S.17 against a vacancy having occurred due to grant of ex- Pakistan, leave to Mr. Shaukat Iqbal, Statistical Officer till his return from leave ex-Pakistan vide order, dated 18-7-1981 of the respondent. Mr. Muhammad Shaukat Iqbal, Statistical Officer, returned from ex-Pakistan leave in the year 1983 and joined duty on 26-9-1983. Even then the appellant was allowed to work as Statistical Officer till 14-11-1984, when the impugned order, dated 14-11-1984/19- 11-1984, was passed by the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department whereby the appellant was reverted to his original post of Statistical Investigator in N.P.S.16, with effect from 26-9-1983. The appellant submitted a representation against this reversion to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department on 3-12-1984. After expiry of prescribed period of 90 days, he has filed this appeal within next 30 days. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i.e., Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Haroon- ur-Rashid Cheema, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondent on behalf of the respondent.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was regularly promoted in N.P.S.17 as Statistical Officer in the year 1981, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, though, for the time being he was adjusted against a vacancy which occurred due to grant of leave ex-Pakistan to Mr. Shaukat Iqbal, Statistical Officer on 18-7-1981. Mr. Shaukat Iqbal, Statistical Officer returned on leave ex-Pakistan upto 26-9-1983 and joined duty on 26-9-1983 (A. N.) after availing of his abovementioned leave. On joining of Mr. Shaukat Iqbal on 26-9-1983, the appellant was not reverted and allowed to continue as such as Statistical Officer in B.P.S.17. The reason being that another clear vacancy had in the meanwhile become available due to creation of new District of Toba Tek Singh. That's why the appellant was allowed to continue working as such and not reverted even after 26-9-1983. The learned counsel for the appellant has further, pointed out that after a lapse of more than one year the appellant was reverted to his original post of Statistical Investigator in B.P.S.16, vide order, dated 14-11-1983/19- 11-1984 of the respondent and that too retrospectively, w.e.f. 26-9-1983. This is contrary to the law as no executive order can be given retrospective effect. When the appellant filed an appeal to this Tribunal, he submitted) an application for stay against this reversion. The application was accepted and a status quo was allowed to be maintained during the pendency of the appeal.
Consequently that order was implemented by the Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department by issuing an order, dated 7-8-1985 whereby the appellant was allowed to work as Statistical Officer till the final decision of this appeal. It has, therefore, been submitted by the appellant's counsel that above facts of the case made it clear that a regular vacancy of the Statistical Officer is available in promotion quota and this stands accepted by the Government itself. Under the above circumstances of the case the appellant cannot be reverted from the Statistical Officer and he is entitled to continue as such.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the order, dated 18-7-1981 of the appellant through which the appellant was appointed as Statistical Officer in B.P.S.17, is clear that the appellant was appointed temporarily against a vacancy having occurred due to grant of ex-Pakistan leave to Mr. Shaukat Iqbal, Statistical Officer. The appellant was liable to be reverted to his original post of Statistical Investigator on expiry of ex-Pakistan leave of Mr. Shaukat lqbal. Thus, he was reverted according to his terms and conditions of the promotion order. Hence, no exception can be taken against the impugned order which is a valid and lawful order. Keeping the above factual position in view, there is no grievance of the appellant and his appeal is liable to be rejected.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the record supplied by the respondent. The record of -the Agriculture Secretariat shows that the case of the appellant has not been dealt properly in the Secretariat and even the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department himself has expressed his dissatisfaction for the same. The relevant paras from the note portion of the case are reproduced below for elucidation:-- "Please check from D.C.R.S if Aslam Hayat would be adjusted/promoted against one of the vacant post. If so, why this was not brought to our notice before we reverted him.
Quick action."
(Sd.)-D.S.(A)
15-4-1985 U.S.G.
"It is not a question of making S.Is feel 'happy' or otherwise. We must try to be just and fair. This can only be done if Vie follow the rules strictly as also the seniority list (neither of which, incidentally, has been put up). Could I now have a very brief note explaining the background of this case, the vacancy position in respect of the Rules, how these vacancies are to be filled in? B. F. 2-5-1985. "
(Sd.)
Secretary 28-4-1985.
D. S. A.
"It appears that the Administration Wing has reached a lack of complete indeference bordering on arrogance - the letter asking us to forward comments was sent by D.C.R.S. In May, 1985. The case has come up to me on 17-7-1985, the P.S.T. Date being 18-7-1985.
What am I to presume? That the Administration Wing just does not give a damn, or that there is no system of checks operating? All I can say is that I am disappointed - things are obviously beyond repair. Comment may go.
(Sd.)
Secretary 17-7-1985."
Finally on 7-8-1985, vide para. 144, the learned Secretary, approved that the appellant be allowed to continue as such till the final decision of the appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The perusal of the record of the Agriculture Department, also makes it clear that Department Promotion Committee approved the promotion of the appellant on regular basis as Statistical Officer in B.P.S.17 and the Minister for Agriculture duly approved the promotion of the appellant as Statistical officer before his promotion order, dated 18-7-1981 was issued. Relevant paras. From the note portion are reproduced below:-- "54. Subject:--PROMOTION OF MR. MUHAMMAD ASLAM HAYAT AS STATISTICAL OFFICER.
55. The Departmental Promotion Committee has approved the promotion on regular basis of Mr. Muhammad Aslam Hayat son of Muhammad Sharif, as Statistical Officer (N.P.S.17). The minutes of the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee may kindly be perused at flag 'A'. The working paper is at Flag 'B'.
56. Minister for Agriculture is requested to kindly approve the promotion of Mr. Muhammad Aslam Hayat as Statistical officer before the posting orders are issued.
(Sd.).
Inayatullah S.O.(G)
6-7-1981.
(Sd. )
57.D. S. A.
7-7-1981.
58. Secretary Agriculture.
For kind approval as per para. 56.
(Sd.)
Secretary Agriculture.
7-7-1981.
59. Minister for Agriculture Approved as proposed vide para. 56 above.
(Sd.)
Minister for Agriculture.
9-7-1981.
No doubt that the appellant, vide order, dated 8-7-1981 was in the first instance appointed against the leave ex-Pakistan vacancy of Mr. Shaukat Iqbal, Statistical Officer but on return of leave ex- Pakistan of Mr. Shaukat Iqbal on 26-9-1983, the appellant was allowed to continue as such without reverting him to his original post till 14-11-1984. This clearly shows that there was a vacancy of a Statistical Officer available on which the appellant was allowed to continue upto above date. On grant of the stay by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, the appellant was allowed to continue as such by the respondent, vide his order, dated 7-8-1985, till the final decision of the appeal by this Tribunal. Director of Agriculture, Crop Reporting Service, Punjab, Lahore, vide his latest letter No.C.R.S.-6(1-A)84-7679, dated 17-10-1985, addressed to the Under Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department (Page 96 of the file), has clarified that at present one post is available in the promotion quota. Under the circumstances mentioned above the following position emerges out:--
(a) The appellant was promoted on regular basis as a Statistical Officer in N.P.S.17 on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee as approved by the Minister for Agriculture on 9-7-1981.
(b) The respondent, vide impugned order, dated 14-11-1984/19-11-1984 had reverted the' appellant retrospectively, w.e.f. 26-9-1983 which is not premissible under the law.
(c) The appellant was allowed to continue as Statistical Officer even after joining of Mr. Shaukat Iqbal, Statistical Officer on 26-9-1983, after availing of leave ex-Pakistan. Thus, there is force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that a post of Statistical Officer is available for the appellant as a new post of Statistical Officer has been created for the newly established District of Toba Tek Singh.
(d) The learned Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture has allowed the appellant to continue as such as Statistical Officer till the decision of his appeal by this Tribunal, vide his order, dated 7-8-1985.
(e) The letter, dated 17-10-1985 (referred to above) of Director of Agriculture Crop Reporting Service, Punjab, Lahore addressed to the Under Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department shows that the vacancy of Statistical Officer in promotion quota is presently available.
8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the reversion of the appellant, vide impugned order, dated 14-11-1984/19-11-1984 of the respondent had been made unlawfully for which there was no justification. The appeal is accepted. The impugned order is set aside.
There are no order as Lo Costs.
A.E.