Raja Muhammad Nazir, Forest Range Officer, Lower Topa, Murree Hills, has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 for setting aside the order dated 6-5-1978, substituting the date of promotion of the appellant from 1-11-1975 to 6-5-1978, making him to be junior to respondents No.4 to 11. He has impleaded the Conservator of Forests, Rawalpindi Circle, Chief Conservator of Forests, North Zone, Rawalpindi and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Forestry and wildlife & Forestry Department, Lahore and M/s. Muhammad Mumtaz Khan, Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Nawaz, Abdul Razak, Shafqat Hussain, Aftab Ahmad, Abdul Hamid, Muhammad Usman, Jan Muhammad, Feroze Khan, Ghulam Shabbir and Siddique Ahmad, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that impugned order dated 6-5-1978, passed by respondent No.1 be set aside and appellant be restored his original seniority in the cadre of Deputy Rangers.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service in the Punjab Forest Department as Soil Conservation Tarogha in June, 1949 and was appointed as Forester w.e.f. 1-3-1952. The case of Foresters of Rawalpindi Circle were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee to the rank of Deputy Rangers but the case of the appellant was deferred for want of complete record with which the appellant had nothing to do. In June, 1976, the name of the appellant was approved for promotion alongwith his other colleagues but he was left out and instead his junior was promoted as Deputy Rangers. However respondent No.1 vide his order dated 8-4-1978, promoted the appellant as Deputy Ranger from 1-11-1975, the date from which he was entitled to be promoted. This order was later on modified and the promotion was given effect from 8-4-1978, instead of 1-11-1975. The appellant made several representations against this unjustified action but the same were not considered. After filing an appeal to the respondent No.3 on 28-5-1984 he waited for 90 days and when he did not receive any reply he has come before this Tribunal through this appeal.
4. The respondent Government have submitted reply as well as out of contesting respondents M/s. Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Nawaz, Khan Muhammad, Mumtaz Khan whereas others proceeded ex parte.
5. I have heard the learned District Attorney, appellant in person and contesting respondents indicated above and have examined the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant was not available on the date of arguments and appellant while relying on PLD 1982 Pesh.165, argued that such like orders without giving notice to the person so effected, would be in violation of principle of natural justice as well as rules governing such action. According to the appellant once the date of his promotion was notified from 1-11-1975 the same could not be unilaterly amended to 6-5-1978, to the determent of the appellant.
7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department and has submitted that the date was amended in view of the fact that there was no post available at that time and a request was made to the Finance Department for the creation of the said post. As the Finance Department regreted to do so there was no other alternative by the Government but to issue another notification by which the date of promotion from 1-11-1975 was changed to 6-5-1978.
8. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that it is established on record that delay in the promotion of the appellant only occurred because at the time of said promotion of his juniors, his record was not available. This being so the appellant cannot be considered at fault for this in action as it was for the Department itself to make the record available to give him his due. It is also established on record that when the record was made available and it was found that he would be entitled to the promotion from the date his juniors were so promoted from 1-11-1975, a notification was issued by the Government in this behalf.
The plea of the Government that at that time no vacancy was available And Finance Department was requested to create one post and on the Inability shown by the Department, the Government changed the date Of promotion of the appellant from 1-11-1975 to 6-5-1978, does not impress this Tribunal as this sort of omission on the part of the Finance Department cannot be allowed to effect the vested rights of the appellant which stood created in his favour after the issue of the said notification. In this case the right course for the respondents was/should have been that the appellant was to be served with a show cause notice as to why earlier notification so issued in his favour be not withdrawn. It was for the appellant to satisfy that they could not do so either in law or on facts. However, this sort of unilateral action without giving a show cause notice to the appellant cannot be condoned.
9. The result is I accept the appeal set aside the impugned order dated 6-5-1978, and remand the case to respondents to proceed from the stage where the fault occurs. However, there will be no order as to costs. Announced in the open Court on 13-10-1985 at Rawalpindi Circuit. Judgment be released to the parties.
M.Y.H./102-Sr.P