JUDGMENTMOHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN.- Mohammad Saghir Anwar, Junior Clerk has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned orders dated 8-10-1988 and 27- 9-1987 passed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2. The appellant has impleaded the Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, Commissioner Sargodha Division, Sargodha, Rana Mohammad Saleem, Abdul Khaliq, Zafar Iqbal and Nawab Falak Sher, Junior clerks as respondents. Through this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 8-10-1988 and 27-9-1987 passed by the respondents Nos.l and 2 be set aside and the appellant's seniority-cwm- confirmation may be stored.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant was temporarily appointed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) as Junior Clerk on 18-11-1987, was confirmed by respondent No.2 with effect from 3-7-1982. The appellant was included in the seniority list of, Ministerial staff of Commissioner's office and was placed at Sr.No.35. The respondents Nos.3 to 6 filed a representation against the seniority of appellant claiming therein that appellant should not have been included in the seniority list of employees of Commissioner's Office Sargodha. On this, the advice of the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab was solicited who vide their Memo.No.2765- 86/4036-E(M)II, dated 14-12-1986 intimated as under:- "Mr. Saghir Anwar, Junior Clerk, was appointed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) against temporary post which occurred on the consolidation side. He should not have been included in the Seniority list of employees of Commissioner's Office, Sargodha Division."
3. The appellant was served with a notice as to why he should not be deconfirmed and his name removed from the seniority list of the Junior clerks of the Commissioner's Office, Sargodha. The appellant feeling aggrieved filed a representation before respondent No.1 (Member Board of Revenue, Punjab) which was too dismissed. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record with the assistance of the representatives of the department with care.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondents Nos.l and 2 failed to appreciate the legal and factual position which has resulted in wrong order of deconfirmation and removal of the name of the appellant from the Seniority List.
Further argued that the respondent No.2 failed to apply independent mind to the facts of the case.
6. Conversely, learned District Attorney seriously opposed the appeal and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondents be allowed to stand in the light of the comments/report furnished on behalf of respondents.
7. After having gone through the file, I have given anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and find that the appellant was allowed to work as Junior Clerk with PA. To Commissioner and thereafter posted as Junior Clerk Revenue Branch etc. By way of internal arrangement and was not absorbed on regular basis. I also find that the Consolidation side is a separate Wing and the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) is appointing authority only in respect of the staff working in the Consolidation Wing. The appellant was appointed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and his appointment was only for Consolidation Wing as the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) has no authority to appoint the staff for the office of the Commissioner. It is also added that the Consolidation Wing of the Division is a separate office for which separate funds are allocated to meet the expenditure on Consolidation side whereas the office of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division is a separate Wing and separate funds on permanent basis are allocated for the establishment of the Commissioner's office. The officials of Consolidation Wing whenever they are required to work in the office of the Commissioner; Sargodha Division, they still remain employees of the consolidation Wing and they cannot be treated as permanent employees of the Commissioner's office. The appellant's appointment in the office of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Sargodha Division was purely for the establishment of that office which cannot be merged in the establishment of Commissioner, Sargodha Division which is of a permanent nature. It is also added that the appointment authority in case of employees of Commissioner's office is separate whereas the competent appointing authority in case of appointment of staff of consolidation office is separate. Respondent No.2 after considering the merits of the case as well as hearing the appellant correctly passed the order dated 27-9-1987 in accordance with law.
8. I do not find any illegality or irregularity on the point of law or facts in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. The appellant's name was rightly removed from the seniority list and the appellant was deconfirmed in accordance with the Government instructions received in this context. The instant appeal has no merits which stands dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Parties be informed accordingly.