' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Zia Ahmad Siddiqi is a Documents Officer, Export Promotion Bureau, Karachi. He has preferred this appeal for upgradation/redesignation of his post from BPS-16 to BPS-17 with effect from 8-8-1983.
2. The appellant was appointed as a Documents Officer in the Export Promotion Bureau on 6-3-1970 on his selection by the Central Public Service Commission. On the establishment of Commerce and Trade Group, in pursuance of the Administrative Reforms under O.M. No,5/2/75-ARC, dated 9th May, 1975, the posts in the Export Promotion Bureau and other allied departments, mentioned therein, constituted service in the Group under the administrative control of the Ministry of Commerce. The appellant also, therefore, became a civil servant in the Group. In the year 1983, posts of Economic Investigators and Statistical Investigators in Grade-16 were upgraded to Grade-17 and redesignated as Research Officers and Statistical Officers respectively and the incumbents of the posts were also upgraded to Grade-17 in accordance with the policy laid down under O.M. Dated 8th August, 1983 and subsequent orders issued from time to time. The appellant represented that his post was equivalent to the post of Economic Investigators and Statistical Investigator and it may also be upgraded to Grade-17. According to him, his representations were not listened to and ultimately he made departmental appeal dated 16-3-1986 to the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and he was informed under Memo. No,EPB-P(726)/Estt70, dated 1st July, 1986 that his request could not be acceded to. He then preferred this appeal on 30-7-1986.
3. The appellant claims upgradation of the post of Documents Officer from BPS-16 to BPS-17 on the analogy of the upgradation and redesignation of the posts of Economic Investigators and Statistical Investigators in the same Commerce and Trade Group, as aforesaid. He has impleaded the Director Administration (E&PD), Export Promotion Bureau; Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, and as many as 16 Research Officers and Statistical Officers as respondents. His contention is that those officers who have been impleaded as respondents were junior to him in service in the Commerce and Trade Group and yet they were upgraded, and he was left behind and he has placed reliance on a combined seniority list, an unauthenticated copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 'C' at page 50.
4. Written objections have been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 who are the Director Administration, Export Promotion Bureau and the Ministry of Commerce. Written objections have also been filed by the respondents 3 to 6. The remaining respondents 7 to 18 have not filed written objections.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant urged at the hearing of the appeal that the name of the appellant was mentioned in the combined seniority list and he was placed above the respondents 3 to 18 in appeal and he should have been treated at par while upgrading the posts of the Economic Investigators and Statistical Investigators from Grade 16 to Grade-17 and redesignating them as Research Officers and Statistical Officers respectively and there was no obvious reason for not upgrading/redesignating his post.
6. The contesting respondents have resisted the appeal contending that the appellant was holding altogether a different post and he could not claim that his post should have been equated with the post of the Economic Investigators and Statistical Investigators and his claim is misconceived.
According to them, mere mention of the appellant's name in the supposed integrated seniority list does not give him any right to claim upgradation of the post.
7. The appellant's post is no doubt included in the posts of the Commerce and Trade Group. The post of Documents Officer held by him is in grade 16. The posts of the Economic Investigators and Statistical Investigators in the same Commerce and Trade Group also were placed in Grade-16 but they were upgraded to Grade-17 and redesignated as Research Officers and Statistical Officers in the year 1983. The Commerce and Trade Group comprised the posts which were in several departments viz. Export Promotion Bureau, Imports and Exports, Tariff Commission, Cotton Board, Department of Insurance and Trade Marks Registry. All the posts were based in Grades-1 to 22.
Posts in Grades-1 to 16 in the Group were to operate separately in each department/office as they were operating before. Separate departmentwise seniority lists were to be maintained for all posts in Grades-1 to 16 as before. A combined seniority list was to be prepared in respect of Grade-17 officers. Thus, the posts upto grade 16 were to be regulated in accordance with the instructions and orders which were applicable to each department. There were numerous posts with different designations in each grade of pay in the said Commerce and Trade Group. Upgradation of one category of posts in one constituent group did not necessarily give cause for upgradation of posts of equivalent grade in other constituent IC departments. Of course, the Government did take care of such a situation and it was directed under Establishment Division O.M. No,8/21/80-D.I/R.I., dated the 27th November, 1984 (Annexure 'B' to the written objections filed by the Government) that upgradation of posts in various Ministries/Divisions/ Departments which carried different nomenclatures but the nature of duties and the minimum prescribed qualification were identical to those to Economic/ Statistical Investigators should be examined on their merits by Finance and Establishment Divisions. The appellant's case should have been examined under this direction and decided on merits. The order of rejection of the appeal of the appellant dated 1-7-1986, impugned in this appeal, does not indicate that the appellant's case was examined in the light of the aforesaid direction contained in O.M. Dated 27th November, 1984, referred to above. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent that the appellant's case for upgradation of the post and its redesignation should be examined at the appropriate level in the light of the directions contained in the Establishment Division O.M. No,8/21/80-D.I/R.I., dated the 27th November, 1984, within reasonable time. No order is made for costs.