' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 15-2-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant in which he had challenged his reversion and the seniority of respondent No, 3 over him, has been dismissed.
2. The appellant was a gang muawin and was promoted temporarily on 15-8-1985. Muhammad Hussain, respondent No, 3, who was a troll man, was transferred as gangmuawan at his own request on 15-10-1985 after the appellant had been promoted as mate. On 5-11-1985 the appellant was reverted and respondent No, 3 was promoted as mate in his place. The case of the appellant is that since respondent No, 3 was transferred from the post of trolley-man to the post of gang- muawin in a directed category, it amounts to a change in the category and that since it was done at the request of respondent. No, 3 he ranked junior to him and, therefore, he (the appellant) was wrongly reverted to make room for the former. The order by which Muhammad Hussain was made gangmuawin describes the posting as a change in the category So there is no dispute that the category of Muhammad Hussain was changed while posting him as gangmuawin. Although the said order describes the transfer as change of category, yet the learned counsel for the respondents have argued that it did not amount to change in the category. I have held in the connected appeals of Qadir Bakhsh and Muhammad Ramzan that the posting of Muhammad Hussain as gang-main amounted to a change in the category. According to rule 127 Appendix VIII appearing at pages 71 and 72 of the Personnel Manual Volume-I. Vision requirement for trolly-man is B-1 whereas for gang-muawin it is C-1. In rule 205 both the categories are mentioned separately which also shows that the categories are different. Since Muhammad Hussain was made gang- muawin on his own request he was to be ranked junior to the appellants and others who were already working as such. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not take any declaration from Muhammad Hussain to the effect that he would rank junior but this fact would not adversely affect the right of the appellant. If respondents Nos. 1 and 2 committed any blunder, the appellant cannot be made to suffer for that. Admittedly, not in the exigencies of service but pursuant to the request of respondent No, 3 the latter was transferred to the category of gang-muawin, therefore, he is junior to the appellant. Since no declaration was taken from respondent No, 3, he has the option either to go back to his parent department or to remain as gang-muawin running junior to the appellant and others who admittedly were already existing in the category before he came.
3. There is force in the argument of the learned representative of the appellant that without service of notice seniority of a person cannot be changed to his detriment. Rule 610 of section VI is clear on the point. In the present case it has not been shown that before changing the seniority of the appellant any such notice was served upon him.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the appellant was promoted temporarily and locally, he had no right to challenge the reversion. Where a person is locally promoted till a regular promotion takes place, of course when regular promotion is made, he is to be reverted and he cannot challenge reversion but in the present case the appellant was reverted to make room for Muhammad Hussain, respondent No, 3 who is junior to him.
5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision and the order of reversion of the appellant he is directed to be reinstated as mate and he will remain as such till he is considered for being permanently promoted against the said post.