SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Mr. Azmat All Afridi has preferred this appeal for determination of his seniority amongst the Accounts Officers in the office of the Accountant- General, Baluchistan.
2. The appellant's case, briefly stated, is that on dissolution of One-Unit, the office of the Comptroller was established in Baluchistan with effect from 1-7-1970. Options were invited from the staff in the Audit and Accounts Offices of other Provinces for serving in the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan. He was then serving in the office of the Comptroller, SAWP, Karachi. He gave his option for serving in the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan and was appointed in that office. He qualified for Subordinate Accounts Service (SAS) in 1975. The respondents Nos, 3, 4 and 5, namely M/s. M. Afzal Khokhar, Muhammad Ikram and S.M. Ziauddin, were taken in the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan on deputation and they continued serving there. Subsequently, they opted to serve in the office of the Comptoller, Baluchistan which was later designated as the office of the Accountant-General, Baluchistan. The appellant became aware of their absorption in the year 1985. He made representation for determination of his seniority vis-a-vis the respondents 3, 4 and 5. In due course of time, a provisional seniority list of officers in Grade-17 was circulated on 14- 1-1986. The respondents 3, 4 and 5 were placed above him. He made representation dated 17-2- 1986. He was informed under letter dated 23-1-1988 that his representation was rejected as being time-barred as well as lacking merits. He preferred this appeal on 23-2-1988.
3. The appeal is directed against the Auditor-General of Pakistan, Accountant-General, Baluchistan and the private respondents M. Afzal Khokhar, Muhammad Ikram and S.M. Ziauddin. All the respondents have opposed the appeal. All the respondents, except respondent No, 3, namely M.
Afzal Khokhar, have filed written objections. The respondents Nos, 1 and 2 (the Auditor-General of Pakistan and the Accountant-General, Baluchistan) have taken preliminary objection that the appeal is time-barred. Their case on facts is: that prior to July, 1970 the area comprising the Province of Baluchistan was under the audit jurisdiction of Comptroller, Southern Area, West Pakistan, Karachi (now Accountant-General, Sind, Karachi) and the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan was established at Quetta with effect from 1-7-1970. Options were invited from the staff then serving in the office of the Comptroller, Southern Area, West Pakistan, Karachi for transfer to the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan. The appellant was then working as U.D.C. in the office of the Comptroller, Southern Area, West Pakistan, Karachi. He opted for transfer to the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan and he was transferred to that office with effect from 1-7-1970. He qualified in the Subordinate Accounts Service examination there and was promoted as SAS Accountant in September, 1975. The respondents 3 to 5 M. Afzal Khokhar, Muhammad Ikram and S.M. Ziauddin were Accountants in the offices of the Director, Audit & Accounts Works, Lahore and the Comptroller, Southern Area, West Pakistan, Karachi and were conscripted and transferred to serve in the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan with effect from 1-7-1970. They made representations for their repatriation to their parent department but they were not repatriated and they opted for absorption in the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan and they were accordingly absorbed with effect from 1-7-1970 vide Comptroller, Baluchistan's office order No, Admn./4-3/3407, dated 17-64979. The respondent No, 3 Mr. M. Afzal Khokhar was absorbed with effect from 1-7-1970 and the respondents 4 and 5, Muhammad Ikram and S.M. Ziauddin were absorbed from 28-6-1976 and 24-4-1976 respectively. The appellant was confirmed as SAS Accountant with effect from 2-9- 1975. The appellant did not challenge the absorption of the respondents 3, 4 and 5 until 14-12-1985 when he lodged protest against their absorption. The seniority of the respondents 3 to 5 was determined in accordance with the provisions of para. 6(b), Appendix III of the Establishment Division Office Memo. No, 6/15/48-ME, dated 31-3-1951 read with office Memo. No,6/39/57-ME, dated 5-2-1958. The seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis the respondents 3 to 5 as Accounts Officer was determined in accordance with the provisions of section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, i,e, from the date of their appointment as Accounts Officers. The appellant remained quiet and he made representation only after the seniority list of the Assistant Accounts Officers for the period ending 31-12-1985 was issued. The case of the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 in nutshell is that the appellant was promoted as SAS Accountant (Grade-16) in September, 1975, while the respondent No, 3, Mr. M.
Afzal Khokhar, was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer (Grade-17) with effect from 1-4-1974, and the respondents 4 and 5, M/s. Muhammad Ikram and S.M. Ziauddin, were promoted as Assistant Accounts Officers in Grade-17 with effect from 4-11-1970 and 3-5-1971 respectively and, therefore, they ranked senior to the appellant. The respondents 4 and 5 too have claimed the seniority over the appellant on the ground that they were senior to the appellant in all respects.
4. At the hearing of appeal, the appellant appeared along with his Advocate Mr. Tahir Muhammad Khan. The official respondents 1 and 2 were represented by the Standing Counsel Mr, Niaz Ahmad Khan, who was assisted by Mr. Akhtar Ali Shah, A.O. and Mr. Saiful Hassan, A.O., Office of the Accountant-General, Baluchistan. The respondents 3 to 5 did not make appearance.
5. The appellant claims seniority over and above the respondents 3 to 5 on the ground that he had opted to serve in the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan with effect from 1-7-1970 and he passed departmental examination and he was regularly promoted to the Subordinate Accounts Service (Grade-16) with effect from 12-94975, while the respondents 3 to 5 were serving as deputationists and they were anxious for their repatriation to their parent department and they opted to serve in Baluchistan after they did not find prospects of promotion in their parent departments and they could, at the most, claim seniority from the day they gave their options in 1976 to serve in Baluchistan. His case does fall within the framework of the instructions issued under Office Memorandum No, 6/15/48-ME, dated 31-3-1951 read with office Memorandum No, 6/39/57- ME, dated 5-2-1958, published in ESTACODE, 1983 Edition, at pages 217 to 220. The appellant had opted for permanent absorption in the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan from 1-7-1970 and he earned promotion in normal course in the Subordinate Accounts Service with effect from 1975. The respondents 3 to 5 were conscripted temporarily to the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan and they were deemed to be deputationists. They opted to serve in the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan only in 1976 and they were absorbed. The question is whether they could count their previous service for the purpose of seniority vis-a-vis their counterparts already serving in the department. Their entry in service under the Comptroller, Baluchistan in the aforesaid circumstances tantamounted to their transfer from their parent offices to that of the Comptroller, Baluchistan by way of their option to serve there. Their seniority vis-a-vis the other officers in the same grade was, therefore, to be determined in accordance with paragraph 6 of the office memorandum dated 31-3-1951 read with office memorandum dated 5-2-1958, referred to above. It lays down that when it is open to the person concerned to accept or refuse other appointment in another office, he should count his seniority in the new office from the date of his transfer to that post and when a person is compulsorily transferred to another post as a result of conscription, or along with the posts and his work, he should be allowed to count his previous continuous service in the grade towards seniority in that grade in the new office. As indicated above, the respondents 3 to 5 were, of course, conscripted to serve in the office of the Comptroller, Baluchistan and they were later given option for their permanent absorption in that department and they exercised their option only in the year 1976. They would, therefore, be deemed to have regularly entered service under the Comptroller, Baluchistan from the dates they exercised their options. By virtue of their entry in the regular service under the Comptroller, Baluchistan, by way of option, they could count their seniority in the grade they were serving at the time of their absorption from the date they exercised their options and they would not be entitled to count their previous service for the purpose of seniority. Thus, the appellant is entitled to claim seniority over the respondents 3 to 5 as he entered SAS with effect from 1975.
6. As regards the question of limitation raised by the respondents Nos, 1 and 2, it would appear that the respondents Nos, 3, 4 and 5 were absorbed in the office of the Accountant-General, Baluchistan by the Auditor-General of Pakistan vide his No, 1333-GB-II-18-73, dated 16-6-1976, as indicated in the letter dated 3-2-1986 by the Assistant Accounts Officer, Baluchistan, addressed to the appellant and two others, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure B to the written objections filed by them. Of course, this letter did not indicate as to from which date they stood absorbed. The provisional seniority list was circulated on 14-1-1986. The appellant made representation to the Accountant-General, Baluchistan on 17-2-1986 and having no response, he made representation to the Auditor-General of Pakistan, Lahore on 10-8-1986. He was informed under letter dated 3-1-1988 that his representation was rejected as being time-barred as well as lacking in merit. This date should be the date for counting the period of limitation. He preferred this appeal on 23-2-1988 and it was, therefore, within the period of limitation and is not time-barred.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed with the direction that the appellant shall be placed senior to the respondents Nos, 3, 4 and 5. No order is made for costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.