1. ORDER S. A. Mahmood (Chairman).--By this appeal under section 8(1) of the Punjab Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1970, Mr. Abdul Hamid, appellant who is now Junior Clerk in the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab Province, claims seniority over respondents 3--9, and prays that his seniority may be fixed above serial No. 14 and below serial No. 13 in the impugned seniority list, issued on 25th January 1972, in which he has been shown at serial No. 21. He also requests for promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk from the date assigned to respondent No. 3, which is a matter which we cannot direct under the Ordinance. Though the appellant impleaded respondents 3--9 in the appeal this Tribunal did not issue notice to Mr. Asif Hussain Bukhari and Mr. Niaz Ahmad, respondents 4 and 6, whose date of appointment to the Provincial Assembly as Junior Clerk was shown in the appeal itself as being earlier than the date of appointment of the appellant. The appellant Is present in person. Respondents 1 and 2 are represented by Mr. Sadlq Hayat, Special Additional Government Pleader. Out of the respondents, Mr. Muhammad Arif II, Mr. Abdul Haq and Mr. Muhammad Arif, respondents 3, 5 and 8 are present in person. Mr. Muhammad Khalid and Mr. Mahammad Abrar respondents 7 and 9 are absent ln spite of service. Mr. Abdul Hamid, appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk ln the Sessions Court at Lahore by way of make-shift arrangement in casual vacancies occurring in that Court from 11th July 1960 to 18th April 1961. He was even appointed as Assistant Record Keeper after a break of 10 months ln service. That service dees not count for seniority. The appellant does not even claim that it should be considered for fixation of his seniority qua respondents 3, 5 and 7--9. On 13th April 1962 he applied to the Secretary, Provincial Assembly for being appointed as Junior Clerk. On 27th May 1962, he was offered appointment as Watch and Ward Assistant ln the same pay scale as that of Junior x Clerk. In the seniority list, the Junior Clerks and Watch and Ward Assistants are jointly shown in the same grade. As he assumed charge on 29th May 1962, his date of continuous appointment is to be deemed to be 29th May 1962.
2. By order of 6th June 1967. he was confirmed as Junior Clerk in the Provincial Assembly with effect from 30th November 1962. From 4th September 1972, he has been promoted as Senior Clerk against a leave vacancy for 4 months i e. up to 3-1-1973. Mr. Muhammad Arif II son of Mr. Muhammad Amin, respondent No. 3, who figures at serial No. 14 in the impugned seniority list, was appointed as temporary Junior Clerk ln the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, West Pakistan on 20th September 1960, and was rendered surplus from that office. He was appointed as temporary Junior Clerk against a temporary post in the Provincial Assembly Secretariat and took over from 2-7-1962.
3. This, thus is the date of his continuous appointment as Junior Clerk in the Provincial Assembly. His service in the Office of the Chief Engineer from 2nd September 1960, cannot count for seniority Jn view of the principle laid down by the Services and Genera) Administration Department in its Letter No. SOXII (S&GAD)-2-36/68, dated 8th January 1969. He has been promoted as officiating Senior Clerk from lst March 1972. Mr. Abdul Haq, respondent No. 5, who figures at serial No. I6 of the seniority list, was also appointed as a temporary Junior Clerk in the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation, West Pakistan from 7th January 1961, and was declared surplus in that office. From 2-7- 1962 he was appointed as temporary Junior Clerk ln the Provincial Assembly Secretariat. As ln the case of Mr. Muhammad Arif II, respondent No. 3 he can only count his date of continuous appointment as Junior Clerk from 2nd July 1962, and not from 7th January 1961. He was promoted as officiating Senior Clerk from 17th April 1972. Mr. Muhammad Khalid, respondent No. 7, was also appointed as temporary Junior Clerk in the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation West Pakistan from lst March 1961, and was declared surplus from that office. He was also appointed as temporary Junior Clerk in the Provincial Assembly Secretariat from 2nd July 1962, which is the date of his continuous appointment as Junior Clerk in the Provincial Assembly, since he cannot count his service in the Irrigation Department for the purpose of seniority, having been rendered surplus from there. He has been promoted as officiating Senior Clerk from 17th April 1972. X . 1975 Mohd. Akbar v.
4. Secy, to Govt, of Pb. Irr. & Power Deptt. 3 (S. A. Mahmood, Chairman), Mr. Muhammad Arif I son of Mr. Wali Muhammad, who figures at serial Dumber 19 in the impugned seniority list, was appointed as Junior Clerk in the West Pakistan Development Advisory Council (which was set up in February 1961) from 27th March 1961. This Council was created in the absence of the Provincial Assembly and was intended to be wound up from the date the Provincial Assembly was reconstituted. To this Council some staff of the Provincial Assembly bad been transferred. On its being wound up on the setting up of the Provincial Assembly it was intended to absorb the staff of the Council in the Provincial A ssembly. In this context, the services of this respondent were placed at the disposal of the Provincial Assembly on 27th March 1961. lt should be noted that this respondent was not declared surplus from the Council. He was appointed as temporary Junior Clerk in the Provincial Assembly from lst June 1962. ,He has been promoted as Senior Clerk from 19th April 1972. Since he was appointed in the West Pakistan Development Advisory Council, whose ministerial staff was to be absorbed en bloc in the Provincial Assembly, this respondent is entitled to count his seniority from 27th March 1961, as it has to be treated as a case of re-organisation. The principle of seniority applicable to the case of re-organisation is to determine seniority according to the date of continuous appointment to the grade. Thus, this respondent remains senior to the appellant in the rank of Junior Clerk. Mr. Muhammad Abrar, respondent No. 9, who figures at serial No. 20 of the impugned seniority list, was also appointed as temporary Junior Clerk in the West Pakistan Development Advisory Council from 28th March 1961. His services were placed at the disposal of the Provincial Assembly by the Council on 27th March 1961, and he was appointed as Temporary Junior Clerk in the Provincial Assembly from 1-6-1962. As in the case of Mr. Muhammad Arif I, respondent No. 8, he is entitled to count his seniority as Junior Clerk from 28th March 1961, when he was appointed to the Advisory Council and he remains senior to the appellant as Junior Clerk, since he was an employee of the Advisory Council and not declared surplus by Government. He was promoted as officiating Senior Clerk from 28th April 1972. In the result we accept this appeal against Mr. Muhammad Arif II, Mr. Abdul Haq and Mr. Muhammad Khalid respondents 3, 5 and 7 declaring the appellant senior to them in the grade of Junior Clerks but dismiss the appeal against Mr. Mubammad Arif I and Mr. Muhammad Abrar respondents 8 and 9. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The security deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to him. 1975 PLC [C.S.T.) 3 [Punjab] Present: S. A. Mahmood, Chairman, Bashir Ahmad Khan and Ashfaq ' Ali Khan, Members Ch. MOHAMMAD AKBAR versus The SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB IRRIGATION & POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS , decided on 5th January 1973. Punjab Irrigation Zilladars Service Rules, 1943-- ------ R. 10(2) and West Pakistan Irrigation Department Deputy Collectors Service Rules, 1962, r. 9(1) (6), Explanation I -- Seniority--A and B appointed as Zilladars at one time --A older in age to be placed'senior to J? as Zilladar--and B allocated to different regions for sometime but ultimately on rc-organisa- tion A also transferred to region in which B was serving-- Subsequent to such transfer B promoted as Deputy Collector purportedly against vacancy occurring prior to re-organisation without considering merits of A--A also subsequently promoted as Deputy Collector -- Basic seniority of A in circumstances, ^ held, protected and B, being junior as Zilladar, in circum- - stances, could not become senior to A as Deputy Collector. [pp. 5, 6]A, B, C & D ORDBR S. A. Mahmood -(Chairman).--By this appeal under section 8(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1970, Ch. Muhammad Akbar, appellant, who is now Dy. Collector Western Bar Div., Thingee, Distt. Multan, prayed that he be declared senior to Ch. Ramai Din and Mian Muhammad Hayat, respondents 3 and 4, and that respondents 1 and 2 may be directed to re- fix his seniority so as to show him senior to respondents 3 and 4 in the seniority list. The appellant Is present alongwith Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Masud, Advocate. Mr. Munir Hussain, Asstt. appears on behalf of the C. E. Irri. respondent No. 2. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are not present but it should be made clear here that on 25-5-72 the appellant conceded the seniority of Cn. Ramai Din, respondent No. 3 over him. Since the appeal was not passed against him, it was dismissed qua respondent 3. Respondent No. 4 is not present although adjournments were granted to him to enable him to appear before us. Proceedings are ex parte against him. He has filed a written statement on his behalf. While Ch. Muhammad Akbar, appellant was born on 1-12-1920 Mr. Muhammad Hayat, respondent No. 4 was born on 2-2-42. Thus the appellant was seniorto him in age. The appellant and respondent No. 4' were both selected as Zilladar candidates by the C. E., Punjab, in the batch of November 1944. While the appellant was appointed as Zilladar on 21-3-47 and was confirmed w. e. f. 15-8-47, the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Zilladar on 2-10-46 and was confirmed w.e.f. 15-8-47. In 1962 there was re-organiza- tion of the Irri. Deptt, and three Regions of Bahawalpur, Lahore and Sargodha were created. The appellant who was then posted in the Lower Jhelum Canal Circle was transferred alongwith the whole staff of the Circle to Sargodha Region, ln 1966 the appellant was transferred to Lahore Region by mutual transfer with one Malik Abdur Rehman. On 25- 3-68, Multan Region was carved out of the three Regions and Multan Region came into existence. The appellant having been posted on the day in Niff Bar Circle, which became a part of Bahawalpur Region, became a member of the Bahawalpur Region. Respondent No. 4 was posted to Bahawalpur Region In 1962 and he still remains there. It was in 1968 that the appellant and respondent 4 got together ln the Bahawalpur Region / e. the same cadre. While 1he appellant was promoted as Dy. Collector on 28-9-69 and was confirmed from 1-9-70, respondent 4 was so promoted from 25-9?68, and was continued from 2-1-70. We have been shown the seniority list of Zilladars corrected up to 13-10-55. In that list the appellant has been shown senior to the respondent 4 as Ziiladar. We are informed that as Zilladar the appellant was shown senior to respondent 4 in all the seniority lists. Even in the seniority list as on 31-3-71 and on 15-1-72, the appellant has been fhown senior to the respondent 4 as Zilladar. Their seniority as Zilladar was governed by sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of the Punjab Irrl. Zilladar Service) Rules, 1943. This sub-rule provided for the fixation of the seniority A of Zilladar candidates and directed that the seniority of candid ites appointed at one time shall be determined according to age, and appointment to the service be made accordingly as names of Zilladars stood ln the seniority list so prepared. In this rule there was no specific provision for fixation of seniority of Zilladar on appointment as such. Sub- rule (1) of rule 10 is not attracted to the case of the parties, as neither of them was promoted as lst Grade Zilladar and distinction between lst Grade and 2nd Grade Zilladars was abolished in 1944.
5. Sub-rule (2) of rulo 10, however, indicates that seniority as candidite governed seniority of the Zilladars of the 2ad Grade as the appellant and the respondent 4 were appointed. We examined the official files and classified lists for 15 years ln the case of Zilladars ln by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, decided on 8-9-71, and came to the conclusion that in case of Zilladars appointed at one time they were graded in seniority oq the 5 basis of age. lt is in consonance with this long standing departmental practice that the appellant has continued to be shown senior to respond dent 4 as Ztlladar. We, therefore, hold that the appellant was senior to respondent 4 as Zilladar. The appellant and the respondent 4 having been promoted as Dy. Collector from 28-9-59 and 25-9-68 respectively, their inter se seniority Is determinable under Rule 9 of the West Pakistan Irri. Deptt. Dy.
6. Collector Service Rules, 1962, which came Into force on 3rd September 1962. Under sub-rule (1 )(b) of Rule 9, seniority inter se of members of the service in various grades thereof shall be determined ln the case of members appointed otherwise (that is by promotion) with reference to the dates of their continuous appointment therein. Tnis sub-rule Is subject to Explanation I, which provides that If a junior official in lower grade is promoted to higher grade temporarily ln the public interest, even though continued permanently in the higher grade, it would not adversely affect the interests of senior in the fixation of his seniority in the higher grade. Though the appellant was appointed and confirmed as Dy. Collector later than the respondent 4, the former's seniority over the respondent 4 Is saved by Explanation No. I to rule 9(1 ){b). Having examined the cases of the two we arc satisfied that the respondent 4 in being promoted earlier did not supersede the appellmt in promotion as Dy. Collector. The reason for the respondent 4 being promoted earlier than the appellant, who was senior to him as Zilladar, is to be found in a note by the C. E. Irrl. Bahawalpur dated 25-5-68 to the following effect: "The requisition already placed with the Board should remain and recommendations of the Board in respect of promotion to the posts of Dy. Collectors of Zilladars be obtained. Care should be taken to see that all the Zilladars of ^Bahawalpur Zone are considered for all the post9 of 2?x-Bahawalpur Zone during the time when these posts became vacant till the date of bifurcation of the Bahawalpur Zone. Thereafter allocations of Zilladars shall be made to two zones and their seniority list drawn up. All the Deputy Collector posts falling vacant ln each zone after bifurcation viz. Bahawalpur and Multan will be claimed by the Zilladars of the concerned Zone.** It 1a conceded on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the above note by the Chief Engr, was not based on any order by the competent authority and was not thus in order. His view is that the history of merging and breaking of zones and cadres showed that the principle of reserving vacant posts of Region for the Zilladars of that Region thereby depriving the newly inducted Zilladars of the vacant posts existing on and after the formation of the new Region jeopardized the chances of promotion to those coming from other Regions. This was specially true of the Punjab Zilladars who had been shifted from Lahore to Sargodha and then to Bahawalpur Region. He concedes that the case of the appellant for promotion as Dy. Collector should have been considered along with other Zilladars of x-Bahawalpur for the vacant posts, which existed on or after the bifurcation. Therefore the respondent 4 appears to have been promoted earlier than the appellant though the appellant was senior to him as Zilladar and wa9 a member of Bahawalpur oadre by reason...................... of unauthorised reservation of vacancies, which order Is not supported by any order from the competent authority. We are, therefore, unable to uphold seniority of the respondent 4 over the appellant on the basis of earlier selection by reason of promotion on the basis of reservation of vacancies in the Bahawalpur Region for those belonging to that Region. , The facts as they emerge are that the appellant and the respondent 4 were both selected Zilladar candidates by the Punjab C. E. and were posted as Zilladars. From 1962 they were posted to different Regions but from 25-3- 68 they oame together and because of the vacancies occurring ln that Region they both were to be considered on the basis of their respective seniority and merit, but this did not happen. We hold that consequently the appellant was not superseded by the respondent 4. The basic seniority of the appellant is saved by reason of Explanation No. 1(6) to Rule 9(1 )(6). We, therefore, declare the appellant senior to Mr. Muhammad Hayat, respondent No. 4 as Dy. Collector. We may mention that though Sh. Abdul Rahim appears at serial No. 15 immediately above the appellant ln seniority as Dy.
7. Collector, the appellant does not claim seniority over him so that he remains senior to the appellant. The result is that the appellant is declared senior to respondent No. 4 as Dy. Collector.
8. We accept this appeal but leave the parties to bear their own corst. The security deposit made by the appellant should be refunded to him.