1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J: --Muhammad Nabi petitioner was appointed as Overseer on work-charged basis on 23-7-1973 in the P.W.D. In the Northern Areas and similarly, respondents Muzaffar Abbas on 4-11-1972, Ali Ahmad Jan, on 20-2-1973 and Muhammad Yaqoob on 4-11-1972. They were appointed as ad hoc Assistant Executive Engineers (B-17) w.e.f. 1-1-1974 and their services were regularized through the Public Service Commission with retrospective effect i.e. 1-1-1974, vide letter No.16-1-1974.
2. In the official Gazette Notification dated 23-12-1981 the petitioner was notified at serial No.22, respondents Nos. 6 to 8 at Serial Nos. 26, 27 and 25 respectively, while in the seniority list the petitioner was placed at S.No.1 and the respondents Nos. 6 to 8 were placed at S. Nos. 5, 6 and 4, respectively. Muzaffar Abbas respondent made a representation that he has been initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on 1-4-1973 and his seniority may be reckoned from that date and thus he alongwith other respondents succeeded and got their seniority list revised wherein respondents mentioned above were placed at S. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the petitioner was shown at S. No.4. The petitioner challenged the revised seniority list in a departmental appeal and thereafter he preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 5-7-1989/10-6-1989. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel in support of this petition is whether seniority can be assigned to the incumbent of a post from the date of the work-charge appointment or from the date of ad hoc appointment and according to the learned counsel seniority is to count from the date of regular appointment and on the approval of the Public Service Commission and for that purpose the services rendered on work-charge basis or ad hoc basis have no relevancy to claim the seniority.
4. After having perused the judgment of the learned Service Tribunal, we find it a quite equitable order as the respondents were appointed Assistant Engineers earlier to the petitioner and they have rightly been allowed the seniority over the petitioner. The result is that this petition has no merit which is accordingly dismissed.