' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Hafiz Sabahuddin Jamy belongs to the Police Service of Pakistan, having entered it in January, 1954. To his ill-luck, he was dismissed from service consequent to a disciplinary action vide Establishment Division's notification dated 5th November, 1976, while he was an Officer on Special Duty in the Interior Division. The luck again dawned upon him in August, 1977, when he was reinstated into service vide Memorandum dated 25th August, 1977, reproduced below:- "CABINET SECRETARIAT ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION Rawalpindi, the 25th August, 1977.
MEMORANDUM ' No, 9/28/76-C.H. The Chief Martial Law Administrator has been pleased to reinstate Mr.H.S.D.Jamy, who was dismissed vide the Establishment Division Notification of even number dated the 5th November, 1976, as Deputy Inspector General of Police in Grade-19, with effect from the 17th August, 1977.
Sd/- Fazal Hussain Deputy Secretary."
' The aforesaid Memorandum (Notification) was cancelled and it was replaced by a Notification No,14/3/77-C.II, dated the 6th December, 1977, reproduced below: "Government of Pakistan Cabinet Secretariat (Establishment Division)
Rawalpindi, the 6th December, 1977.
NOTIFICATION ' No,14/3/77-C.II. The President is pleased to reinstate Mr.H.S.D. Jamy, who was dismissed from service, vide Establishment Division Notification No,9/28/76-C.II, dated the 5th November, 1976, as Deputy Inspector-General of Police in Grade-19 with effect from the 17th August, 1977.
2. The period from the date of his dismissal, that is, the 5th November, 1976, to the 16th August, 1977, that is, the date of his reinstatement, will be treated as period spent on duty.
3. The Establishment Division's Notification No,9/28/76-C.II, dated the 25th August, 1977, is hereby cancelled. Sd/- Fazal Hussain Deputy Secretary."
' During the intervening period, the respondents 1 to 4, namely M/s. Obaidur Rehman Khan, Dilshad Najmuddin, Qamar Alam and Abdul Qayyum, who were junior to him, were promoted to Grade-20.
The appellant was promoted to Grade 20 in April, 1978. In the gradation list of Police Group in Grade 20, his name was placed below the names of the respondents 1 to 4 and one another officer by name Arbab Mukhtar Ahmad. He made representation for restoration of his original seniority. He was informed under letter dated 14th May, 1986 that the question of seniority in pay scale 20 was under consideration of the Government and he would be informed- of the decision when taken by the Government. However, the appellant and the respondents 1 to 4 were promoted to Grade 21 in the meanwhile but their inter se seniority in Grade 20, objected to by the appellant, was maintained, and the appellant's name was placed below the respondents 1 to 4 in the gradation list of officers of Police Service of Pakistan in BPS-21/22. Dismayed by the aforesaid events, the appellant conceived that his representation had been rejected and he filed this appeal on 10-11- 1986.
2. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 have resisted the appeal. They have filed written objections, wherein they have challenged the maintainability of the appeal and also advanced the plea that the appeal is time-barred. They have contended that the order of reinstatement of the appellant into service was not in accordance with law and, in any event, there was'break in his service and he could not claim seniority on his notional continuance in service. There is no resistance to the appeal from the respondent No,4. A written report has been filed on behalf of the Government of Pakistan impleaded in the appeal as respondent No,5. It contains history of the case and it has been stated therein that the representation of the . Appellant was examined in consultation with Justice Division and it was observed that sufficient grounds existed to restore seniority of the appellant in BPS-20 as in the lower grade and such summary was submitted to the Prime Minister on 13-81985 to seek approval of the President to accord seniority to the appellant above the respondent 1, who was his immediate junior when the appellant was dismissed from service, and the decision of the competent authority was awaited.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that by virtue of Notification dated 6th December, 1977, the appellant stood restored to his original position in Grade 19 and it conferred on him continuity in service with all the benefits including promotion etc. According to him, the claim of the appellant for seniority is governed by Section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 regulated by the general principles of Seniority contained in clause (b) of Paragraph B, published in ESTACODE at pages 153 and 154. He has submitted that the appellant was kept out of service under an illegal order and he remained out of consideration perforce at the time his juniors, namely the respondents 1 to 4, were promoted to Grade 20, and his promotion to Grade 20, on his reinstatement, restored him original position in the seniority list in Grade 19 and he ranked senior to the respondents 1 to 4 and he should have been shown senior to them when promotions to Grade 20 were made and his name should have appeared above their names in the seniority/gradation list of Grade 21/22 officers. He has placed reliance on the cases reported in 1981 PLC (C.S.) 615; 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1231; and 1985 PLC (C.S.) 985. He has also contended that the question of promotion of the appellant to Grade 20 was probably delayed for the reason that his case was to be processed for consideration under the provisions of Section 23 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. He has cited 1977 PLC (CST) 25 and 1987 PLC (C.S.) 398 as the supporting authorities.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has contended that the appeal is time-barred as it was filed on 10-11-1986, whereas the appellant had made representation on 17-6-1979, and even if the seniority list which was issued on 1-1-1985 were taken to be the basis for counting the period of limitation, the appeal is time-barred. He has next contended that the order of reinstatement of the appellant was illegal and he has relied upon a case reported in. PLD 1985 SC 309, According to him, the period that had elapsed between the day of order of dismissal of the appellant and that of his reinstatement in service could not be treated as duty and he has made reference to the provisions of FR-54 and Art. 205-B, CSR and Art. 418 CSR. He has cited PLD 1987 SC 427 as an authority on criteria for determination of seniority and has also made reference to clause (ii) of SLNo,158, published in ESTACODE at pages 152-153. According to him, the appellant's case is governed by seniority rules for Police Group published in ESTACODE at page 759 and has made pertinent reference to para 8. He has cited 1986 SCMR 873 as relevant authority.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Government of Pakistan has reiterated the stand taken by the Establishment Division in their written report. He has submitted that the case may be considered in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in M.Iqbal Junejo's case, reported in PLD 1987 SC 427.
6. The written report filed by the Establishment Division contains the detailed history of the case and it would be worthwhile to reproduce it in extensor, although it is lengthy one. It reads as under:- "The appellant was serving as Director, Federal Investigation Agency when on 9-10-1976, he was issued a show cause Notice for committing certain irregularities as being Director, Immigration and Anti-Smuggling, F.IA. He submitted a reply to the show-cause notice on 22-10-1976. He was dismissed from service on 5-11-1976. He submitted a review petition on 25-11-1976 which was rejected on 19-3-1977. Against the appellate order dated 19-3-1977, he moved an appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Written objections on the memo of appeal could not be filed and the appeal was disposed of as infructuous as the appellant had been reinstated in service in the circumstances given in the succeeding paragraphs.
2. On 23-8-1977, the Ministry of Interior informed the Establishment Division that under the orders of the CMLA, the appellant had been directed to take over as Special Officer, Hyderabad Conspiracy Case, with effect from 17-8-1977. That Division requested the Establishment Division to take necessary action regarding his reinstatement, etc. And formal posting as Special Officer. The Cabinet Secretary, on 24-8-1977 approved the notification regarding reinstatement. The Notification was issued on 25-8-1977 which indicated the approval of the CMLA (though no such approval existed). The appellant submitted a petition to the CMLA praying for seniority etc. The Service Tribunal was informed, in connection with Appeal No,51(R)/77 titled Hafiz S.D.Jamy Versus Establishment Division, that MrJamy had been reinstated. The Service Tribunal fixed the hearing for disposal of appeal but adjourned the case with the direction that a decision should be taken with regard to the intervening period from 5-11-1976 to 16-8-1977 i,e, from the date of dismissal from service to the date of reinstatement in service. The Law Division was consulted as a result of which notification dated 25-8-1977 was cancelled. This time the appellant was notified as having been reinstated in service with the approval of the President (though no such approval existed). The intervening period was also treated as period spent on duty. The Service Tribunal was informed accordingly and tilt' appeal No,51(R)/77 was disposed of as no cause of action was left to be agitated by the appellant.
3. The case of the appellant for promotion to Grade-20 was considered by the C.S.B. In its meeting held on 9-2-1978. The C.S.B. Recommended that legal position of the case may be sorted out in consultation with the Law Division. The case was then referred to the Law Division on 9-3-1978.
Meanwhile, he had submitted a representation on 13-12-1977 to the Secretary, Establishment Division praying for fixation of seniority and promotion to Grade-20. The Law Division vide their u. o.
Dated 14-3-1978, gave clearance and the case of promotion was considered by the C.S.B. In its meeting held on 29-3-1978 and he was cleared for promotion. Summary was submitted to the Advisor, Establishment Division on 10-4-1978 who approved his promotion to Grade-20. The promotion was notified on 15-4-1978.
4. The appellant submitted a representation to the Secretary, Establishment Division on 12-6-1979 for fixation of his seniority in Grade-20. Another such representation was submitted in September, 1980 which is undated. The case was referred to the Law Division on 22-10-1979 for advice in the matter of seniority. The Law Division, vide u.o. No,2082/79 dated 13-11-1979 advised the Establishment Division to invoke the competence of the President under Section 23 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 to restore seniority of the appellant.
5. The President was, however, pleased to accord export facto approval to the reinstatement of the appellant in Grade 19 with effect from 17-8-1977 and for treating the period between his dismissal on 5-11-1976 and reinstatement on 17-8-1977 as duty with full pay. Accordingly Notification dated 29-11-1981 was issued vide which the period from 5-11-1976 to 16-8-1976/77 was treated as spent on duty.
6. The seniority representation of the appellant was examined in consultation with Justice Division and. It was felt that sufficient grounds existed to restore seniority of the appellant in BPS 20 as in the lower grade. A summary was, therefore, submitted to the Prime Minister on 13-8-1985 seeking approval of the President to accord seniority to the appellant above respondent No,1 who was his immediate junior when the appellant was dismissed from service. Decision of the competent authority is awaited. In the meanwhile, the appellant and respondents have been promoted to BPS 21."
' It would appear from the history of the service of the appellant during the relevant period outlined in the statement of the case filed by the Establishment Division, reproduced above, that the appellant was not in service from 5-11-1976 (when he was dismissed from service) to 25-8-1977 when Notification for his reinstatement was issued. He had filed an appeal 51(R)/77 in this Tribunal against the order of his dismissal from service and it was disposed of without any effective order in view of his reinstatement in service. It is stated in the report that it was indicated in the notification dated 25-8-1977 of reinstatement of the appellant into service that it was issued with the approval of the CMLA but there was no such order. It is further stated that the notification dated 25-8-1977 was cancelled on representation by the appellant for allowing him seniority counting the period from 5-11-1976 to 16-8-1977, he was out of job, as duty and accordingly the revised notification was issued on 6-12-1977 indicating that it was issued with the approval of the President but there was no such approval. The department has placed on record notifications of promotions to Grade 20 of the respondents 1 to 4. The notifications of the promotions of the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 (M/s. Obaidur Rehman Khan, Dilshad Najmuddin, Qamar Alam and Abdul Qayyum are respectively dated 5-3-1977, 26-1-1977 and 16-3-1977. It is obvious that notifications of the promotions to Grade 20 of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 were issued when the appellant was out of service. Of course, the notification of promotion to Grade 20 of the respondent 1 was issued after the notification of reinstatement of the appellant in service but promotion to the respondent 1 was given effect from 1-2-1977, i,e, before the appellant was reinstated in service. The promotions to Grade 21 are subsequent events. The subtle question for consideration is whether by virtue of reinstatement in service despite the period of actual break in service of the appellant from 5-11-1976 to 16-8-1977, entitled him to retrospective promotion. It has been indicated above that the notification of reinstatement of the appellant in Grade 19 was subsequent to the dates of promotions of the respondents 1 to 4. He claims ante-dated promotion on the basis of paragraph 2 of notification dated 6-12-1977, reproduced at page 2, to the effect that the period from the date of his dismissal viz. 5-11-1976 to 16-8-1977, i,e, the date of reinstatement was directed to be treated as period spent on duty. This paragraph is the determining factor. This notification is indicated to have been issued under the order of the President but it is stated in the written statement filed by the respondent Government that no such order of the President existed. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 that the order .Of reinstatement of the appellant was without lawful authority as the appellant was dismissed from service by an order of the President and the order of his reinstatement also could be passed by only the President, but the report by the department indicates that no such order of the President exists. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 that the supposed order of the President dated 6-12-1977 did not expressly rescind the order of dismissal of the appellant made by the President and that order exists and it closed the chapter of the earlier service of the appellant and the order of his reinstatement amounted to his re-appointment in Grade 19. All these contentions are to be examined in the light of the relevant provisions of law.
7. The substantive provisions of promotion and seniority are contained in the Civil Servants Act, 1973. It is provided in subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 that seniority in a post, service or cadre to which a civil servant is promoted, shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to that post; provided that the civil servants so selected for promotion to a higher post in one batch shall, on their promotion to the higher post, retain their inter se seniority as in the lower post. The appellant's case does not attract the provisions of the proviso. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the general principles of seniority published in ESTACODE at page 153 and he has made pertinent reference to clause (b) of Paragraph B at page 154.
Paragraph B of general principles of seniority is reproduced below: B. Departmental Promotions.-(i) Officers who are approved by the Selection Board/DPC for promotion to the higher grade on an earlier date shall rank senior to those who are approved on a later date, provided that:-
(a) an officer eligible for promotion who is inadvertently omitted from consideration in the original reference and is superseded, when he is subsequently considered and approved for promotion, he will take his seniority with the original batch;
(b) when in a single reference, the Selection Board/DPC are asked to recommend more than one person and the recommendation of the Selection Board/DPC is held up in respect of one or more such persons for want of complete papers etc. Or for reasons beyond the control of the persons concerned, the recommendation of the Selection Board/DPC in respect of such persons when made subsequently will be deemed to have been made on the date when the recommendation in respect of the original batch was made; ' Officers approved by the competent authority on regular basis, for promotion to higher posts in the same batch shall retain the same seniority on promotion as they were enjoying in the lower grade. In case the date of continuous appointment of two or more officers in the lower grade is the same, and there is no specific rule whereby their inter se seniority in the lower grade can be determined, the officer older in age shall be treated senior;
(iii) The seniority of departmental promotes to the higher grade shall count from the date of their regular promotion to the higher grade. The word regular implies;
(a) that the promotions to higher grades were made in vacancies reserved for departmental promotion in accordance with the prescribed roster; and
(b) that the promotions to higher grades were made in accordance with the prescribed Recruitment Rules, i,e, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Selection Board (and in consultation with the FPSC where such consultation was necessary under the Consultation Regulations) and with the approval of the authority competent to make these appointments; and
(c) The promotions to higher grades were kept within the maximum quota prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for Departmental Promotion. In the event of the prescribed Departmental Promotion quota being exceeded in any particular case or cases, the seniority of the person or persons promoted in excess of the quota shall not count from the date from which the promotion or promotions were actually made, but from the date or dates from which they would have been made, if the quota had been properly followed.
' The learned counsel for the appellant has laid emphasis on the provisions of clause (b) of sub- paragraph (i) of Paragraph B and urged that the question of promotion of the appellant at the time the respondents 1 to 4 were considered for promotion to Grade 20, stood held up because of his dismissal from service, hich eventuality was beyond his control, and his subsequent clearance for promotion to Grade 20 by the Central Selection Board was deemed to have been aide on the date when the promotion of his next junior from amongst the espondents 1 to 4 was made. The contention on the other side is that the revisions of clause (b) of sub-paragraph (b) of Paragraph B of the general principles of seniority, reproduced above, do not cover the appellant's case as he as not in service at the relevant time and the consideration for promotion at that ime did not arise.
The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the ases reported in 1987 PLC (C.S.) 398;1977 PLC (CST) 25; 1985 PLC (C.S.) 85; 1981 PLC (C.S.) 615; and 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1213. The learned counsel for the Government has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of .Iqbal Junejo reported in PLD 1987 SC 427. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 has also relied upon the same case of M.Iqbal Junejo and has so cited, in addition, a case reported in 1986 SCMR
893. Of course, the earned counsel for the appellant has contended that M.Iqbal June's case is distinguishable.
8. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant do not dance the appellant's case as they had distinguishable features. In the case exported in 1987 PLC (C.S.) 398 (Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar v. Engineerin-inhief, Joint Staff HQs.), the appellant thereunder was by-passed by the departmental Promotion Committee on account of his involvement in disciplinary case and it was held that he could not lose his seniority on account of s involvement in a disciplinary case in which he was not held guilty. In the instant case, the appellant was not in service when his juniors were considered for promotion. Similar was the case of SA.Rashid v. Chief Settlement & rehabilitation Commissioner (1981 PLC (C.S.) 615) who was by-passed by his unions on account of his suspension and departmental proceedings against him. He was restored his original seniority on his reinstatement after he was exonerated from the departmental proceedings. The case of Syed Kabir Hussain hah v. Secretary to Government of Punjab, reported in 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1231; ND Manzoor Masud Tamanna v. Secretary to Government of Punjab, L.G. & .D.
Deptt. 1985 PLC (C.S.) 958 were considered by the Supreme Court in the set of M.Iqbal Junejo and others and were not approved.
9. The judgment of the Supreme Court in M.Iqbal Junejo's case cited as L D 1987 SC 427, decided five appeals of identical nature filed by the government of Pakistan, two against Junejo Muhammad Iqbal and three against theirs. Junejo Muhammad Iqbal was an Income Tax Officer, Class I (Senior cale), when he was compulsorily retired from service under MLR 114 in March, 972. On promulgation of MLO-23 in 1977, he filed a review petition under the revisions of the said MLO-23 And he was reinstated in service on 7-6-1978 in ride 18, which was equivalent to the former Senior Scale. He was promoted to ride 19 on 1-3-1979. During the period of his compulsory retirement from service reinstatement in service, a large number of officers junior to him at the me of his compulsory retirement were promoted to Grade 19 on different dates after his reinstatement too, some other junior officers were promoted to Grade . He made representation that he too may be promoted to Grade 20. His request was turned down on the ground that he was not so senior as to be rooted to the next Grade 20. He filed an appeal before this Tribunal. He preferred another appeal to the President through the Secretary, Establishment Division. His departmental appeal was rejected. He preferred another appeal before this Tribunal against the decision on his departmental appeal. The facts in the other appeals were similar. Deciding all the appeals, the Tribunal held that the orders of reinstatement of the compulsorily retired officers, who were the appellants, indicated that they were retired from service without any basis and, consequently, the orders of their retirement were null and void and they were, therefore, entitled to be put in the same position which they would have occupied had they not been retired from service. The Tribunal further observed that those officers had not been considered for promotion when the officers junior to them were promoted for no fault on their part and held that they were, therefore, entitled in promotion after reinstatement and to take- seniority above those who were junior to them and were promoted to the next grade during the intervening period. Resultantly, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals and directed that the reinstated officers be treated, on promotion, as senior to all those who were junior to them but were promoted to the next grade while the former were out of service. The decision of the Tribunal was appealed against in the aforesaid appeals. The Supreme Court did not approve of the decision of the Tribunal and, considering the case on all relevant aspects, held that the reinstated officers could not claim- seniority over the officers who were junior to them when they were compulsorily retired from service and were promoted during the period they were out of service, and accepted the appeals by the Government and set aside the orders of the Tribunal. The appellant's case also falls in line with those cases. Of course, there is thin line of distinction, although not significant, between the facts of those cases and those of the appellant's case. In those cases, the appellants were compulsorily retired from service under MLR 114 and they were reinstated into service on review of their cases under MLO 23 and special instructions were issued under Office Memorandum of the Establishment Division, bearing No,3/3/78-R.II, dated 5th July, 1978 in respect of the seniority, etc. Of the officers so reinstated in service. The instructions relevant for the purposes of seniority are contained in paragraphs (d) and
(e) of the Memorandum. They read as under:- "(d) The reinstated persons may be allowed normal seniority in the grade in which they were serving at the time of retirement. In other words, they would be placed in the same position in that grade, which they would have enjoyed had there been no retirement.
(e) The persons reinstated in service may be considered for promotion on the basis of their seniority in the grade held by them in accordance with the normal rules. On promotion to higher grade, they may be allowed pay and seniority from the date of their regular appointment to posts in the higher grade. There will be no automatic promotion on the principle of 'next below' rule."
' It may be mentioned that the aforesaid two paragraphs of the Office Memorandum dated 5th July, 1978 were adversely commented upon by the] Punjab Service Tribunal in the case of Syed Kabir Hussain Shah v. Secretary to the Government of Punjab 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1231, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the view expressed by that Tribunal was not approved of by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that there was no anomaly in the provisions contained in those two paragraphs of the Memorandum dated 5th July, 1978 and held that in view of those provisions those officers could not claim seniority. The Supreme Court also did not approve of the view of this Tribunal that the question of seniority involved in the appeals before it attracted the provisions of Paragraph B of the annexure to the Memorandum dated 31-12-1970 issued by the Establishment Division with the title of "General Principles of Seniority".
10. In the instant case, the appellant was removed from service by the orders of the President consequent to the proceedings taken against him under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and not under MLR 114, and he was reinstated into service by the order of the Chief. Martial Law Administrator, perhaps in exercise of plenary powers vested in him. Therefore, his case was not covered by the Office Memorandum of the Establishment Division dated 5th July, 1978 held applicable by the Supreme Court in the case of M.Iqbal Junejo and others, already referred to above, and his case attracted the general principles of seniority enunciated in the Office Memorandum dated 31st December, 1970, the relevant clauses whereof stand reproduced at paragraph 7 ante. These provisions also were considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Junejo M.Iqbal and others, and the arguments submitted before the Supreme Court and the observations of the Court thereon at paragraph 11 of the judgment read as under:- "Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the Government had since regularised the period intervening between their retirement and reinstatement and as such they were to be treated on the footing as if they had never been out of service. Thus, it was argued, for purposes of Paragraph B ibid, they must be regarded as still in service on the day when officers junior to them were promoted to the higher grade. Since at that time they were not considered for promotion, their cases fell under clause (i) (a) ibid.; consequently, they were entitled to regain their original seniority when, after reinstatement, they too were promoted to the next higher grade. It is difficult to accept this contention unless the word "inadvertently" occurring in this clause is given a labored interpretation. The non-promotion of the respondents was not on account of any inadvertent omission on the part of the Government but was due to the fact that they were not in service actually on the day when promotions of officers junior to them or belonging to their batches took place."
It would appear that although there is some distinction between the facts of the appellant's case and those of the cases of Junejo M.Iqbal and others, as aforesaid, yet the appellant's case does not attract the principles of general policy laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 31st December, 1970 and his case falls in line with the cases of Junejo M.Iqbal and others and the decision of the Supreme Court in those cases that the officers having remained out of service are not entitled to claim seniority over their earstwhile juniors who were promoted during the period they were out of service does apply to his case and he has no case to hold ground.
11. Next is the question of time bar in filing the appeal. The appellant has rayed that his seniority may be rectified and his name be placed above the espondents. His case as regards his seniority is that on his reinstatement in august, 1977, he was promoted to Grade 20 in April, 1978. According to him, he as placed below the respondents 1 to 4 in the seniority list, a copy of which is sled as Annexure 'C'. It is, gradation list of Police Group Officers in Grade 20 corrected up to 1-1-1985. It is his case that he had made representation against the seniority list in June, 1979 but he was not informed of its decision, although he had sent a reminder on 6-4-1986. He has placed on record a copy of d.o. Letter dated 6-4-1986 (Annexure 'D'), addressed by him to the Secretary, Establishment Division. It is mentioned therein that he had made representation for determination of his seniority in June, 1979. It is obvious that he had become conscious even in June 1979 that his position in the seniority list was shown below the respondents. The do letter supposed to be a reminder was sent by him in 1986. He has filed a Photostat copy of a letter dated 14-5-1986 addressed to him from the Establishment Division that the question of his seniority was under consideration. However, he filed this appeal on 20-11-1986 which was beyond the period of thirty days after the receipt of reply dated 14-5-1986 that the question of seniority was still under consideration. Of course, an attempt has been made to circumvent the facts as to cover the delay in filing the appeal by taking the plea that the appellant was placed below the respondents 1 to 4 even in the seniority list of the Police Officers in BPS 21 and 22, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure but he did not make any representation against that seniority list before filing this appeal, and the maintainability of the appeal is hit by proviso (a) to subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Thus, the appeal loses ground even on legal platform as it is time-barred in respect of the first seniority list and it is hit by proviso to subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 as regards the second seniority list.
12. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the appeal factually I as well as legally and it is dismissed, as such with no order as to costs.