1. ORDER S. A. Mahmood (Chairman).--By this appeal under section 8(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1970, Mrs. H. A. Shah, appellant, who is now Field Officer (Voluntary Agency) Social Welfare Department, Rawalpindi prays as follows :-- (1) that the impugned seniority list (Annexure 'B') may kindly be set aside in so far as it determines tue seniority of the appellant qua the respondents Nos. 2 to 23. 1 (2) that the appellant may be declared senior to respondents 2 to 23 in the regular Class II gazetted grade; (3) that the appellant be granted such other reliefs to which she is found entitled and also the costs of appeal. The appellant is entitled to costs of appeal from respondent No. 1 in particular, because respondent No. 1 has Dxed the appellant's seniority wrongly. (4) As a consequential relief, the appellant prays that she may be directed to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director in accordance with her due seniority. Mr. Muhammad Akbar, Advocate appears with the appellant. No one appears for the Director, Social Welfare, respondent No. 1. Mr. Masood Ahmad Riaz, Advocate, appears for respondent No. 2. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Advocate appears for respondent No. I6. Out ot the respondents, respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, I6, 18, 20 and 22 are present in person. The remaining respondents are absent in spite of service; ex farte against them. In the impugned seniority list of officers of the Social Welfare Department of the Punjab Province as on 31st December, 1973, the appellant figures at serial number 27, with respondents 2--23 above her so that they are all shown senior to her. On 29th April, 1961, the appellant was offered appointment against a temporary post of Social Welfare Organizer in Social Welfare Project at Karachi by the Central Government, but the appellant refused this offer on the ground that Karachi was too far away from her home town Lyallpur. On 20tn July, 1961, she was offered a temporary post of Social Wefare Worker-CM/M-Probation Officer in the Home for Destitutes and under-privileged women at Rawalpindi. Though the post was temporary, she was offered appointment on probation for one year. She accepted this offer and joined at Rawalpindi on 12th August, 1961. This Organization was then under the Central Government. Since under the Constitution of 1956 the subject of Social Welfare was in the concurrent list, the Central Government had set up 7 projects. With the change in the Constitution of 1962 by which Social Welfare became a provincial subject, solely within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Govemment, the Central Government trensferred all the 7 projects of Social Welfare run by it to the Provincial Government with effect from the same date and she became a provincial officer, ln respect of tte appellant and other officers, the question was considered between the Central Govemment and the Provincial Government whether approval for appointment of the persons transferred from the Central Govemment should be obtained from the Central Public Service Commission or the Provincial Public Service Commission. Malik Abdul Latif, who was then Director, Social Welfare under the Provincial Government, agreed with the Central Government .that the selection of persons to fill the posts, be left with the Central Govemment as the posts had been advertised by the Central Public Service Commission, the Central Public Service Commission insisted that it would recommend the names of suitable officers of the Social Welfare Department transferred to the Provincial Govemment only on the condition that their recommendation is honoured as if made by the Provincial Public Service Commission. Malik Abdul Latif agreed to it, and the Central Public Service Commission went ahead to interview the applicants and to recommend names of suitable persons for the Provincial Government to fill the posts of Social Welfare Organizers. 1he Central Public Service Commission approved the name cl the appellant for appointment as Social Welfare Wcrker-cww-Piobationer Officer in its letter dated 22ad January, 1963. It was not until 19-12-1963 that the Provincial Government notified the appointment of the appellant as Social Welfare Worker-cwm-Probationer Officer in the Home for Destitutes and Under-privileged Women at Rawalpindi against a temporary post with the approval of the Central Public Service Commission.
2. This notification was superseded by notification of 14th January, 1964, whereby the appellant was appointed with effect from 12th August, 1961, which therefore, became the date of her continuous appointment as Social Welfare Worker-cww-Probationer Officer, which was appointment to a special gazetted post. The appellant claims seniority on the basis of her date of continuous appointment as Social Welfare Officer from 12th August, 1961, and even claims that she is entitled to be placed immediately above Mr. Abdul Aziz, respondent No. 2, who figures at serial number 5 in the seniority list, and is like the appellant a transferee from the Central Government to the Provincial Government as a Social Welfare Organizer. The appellant not only claims seniority on respondent No. 2, but also against respondents 3--23, who were appointed by the Provincial Government as Social Welfare Organizers. They later came to be known as Social Welfare Officers.
3. Their appointment was regularised from different dates with the approval of the Public Service Commission and their dates of continuous appointment ate shown in the impugned seniority list under column 4. It may be clarified here that though the Public Service Commission approved of their appointment after their initial appointment in ad hoc capacity, their appointment with the approval of the Public Service Commission was regularised and notified with effect from the date of their initial appointment as has happened in the oase of the appellant and respondents Nos. 2--
23. The date of continuous appointment of respondents 3--23 are 20th July, 1960, 4th October, 1961, 5th May,. 1962, lst July, 1961, 26th November, 1961, 14th May, 1963, 21st January, \1961, 20th December, 1960, 30th September, 1961, 20th May, 1967, 20th May, 1963, 20th May, 1963 11th November, 1960, 11th January, 1961, 11th January, 1961, Nth November, 1960, 9th December, I960, 3rd March, 1962, 11th April, 1962, 5th June, 1963, 19th June, 1963, and 22nd May, 1963. It will be noticed from these dates that some of these respondents who were initially appointed earlier are shown junior to those initially appointed later. This is due to the fact that respondents 3--23 beiog provincial officers appointed after integration, their inter se seniority has been fixed and determined under paragraph 17(a) of the Integration Circular on the basis of order of merit assigned by the Public Service Commission.
4. Their inter se seniority is not in dispute in this case The only question to be settled in this case is whether the appellant is senior to them. The service particulars of Mr. A. Aziz Ch. respondent No. 2 have been stated by us in detail in the appeal filed by him before us as , decided on 8th February, 1973. All that need be mentioned here in connection with this appeal is that he, like the appellant, is a transferee from the Central Government whose date of continuous appointment is 20th July, 1960, which date is earlier than the date of continuous appointment of the appellant. It cannot, therefore, be understood how the appellant can claim seniority over respondent No. 2. The appellant explains that she claims seniority over him on the basis of date of her approval for appointment by the Central Public Service Commission. That date being earlier, the appellant is senior to respondent No. 2. But this assumption i$ misconceived because inter se between the Central Government transferees, the rule of seniority was not earlier selection as in the case of Provincial Government employees inter se. The natural and equitable rule of seniority,! in their case is the date of induction into the grade, respondent No. 21A having been appointed earlier, than the appellant, he is entitled to seniority) over the appellant. We may mention here that it was because of our decision in the case of Mr. Abdul Aziz Chaudhry that he has been upgraded in seniority and he has been placed at serial number 5 above respondents 3--23. Since the inter se seniority of respondents Nos. 3--23 is governed by and has been determined under paragraph 17(a) of the Integration Circular, their inter se seniority cannot be changed. The date of continuous appointment of the appellant being 12th August, 1961, the question has to be considered as to where she is to be placed in seniority. Since amongst the provincial officers who are respondents Nos. 3--23 the seniormost is Miss Kalima Shams, respondent No. 3 with date of continuous appointment as 4-10-1961, the appellant has to rank senior immediately above her and below Mr. Abdul Aziz Cbaudhary, respondent No. 2. We are aware that by this arrangement the appellant become * senior to some of the respondents namely respondents Nos. 5, 8, 9 and 14--18, whose dates of continuous appointment are earlier than the appellant but this result cannot be avoided; they have to remain junior to the appellant as they are junior to respondents 3 and 4 whose dates of continuous appointment are 4-10-1961 and 5-5-1962. This is subject to any decision which may be taken by this Tribunal in the appeals by some of the respondents as t j their inter se seniority as recruits of Provincial Government. The principle for settling the inter se seniority of Central Government Officers transferred to the Provincial Government qua Provincial Government Officers is stated in para. 3 of the S & G A. D. letter dated 5th April, 1963, substituted by letter of the same number and date, dated 14th J anuary, 1964 as printed on pages 175-178 of the O & M Establishment Manual, Volume I, to which we have referred in the case of Mr. Abdul Aziz Chaudhry.
5. It is the date of continuous appointment. The question of inter se seniority of the Central Government employees qua the Provincial Government employees was decided by us on the basis of the instructions of the S & G. A. D. in the case of Mr. Abdul Aziz Chaudhry a writ petition was filed against our order. This is by Mrs. Kalim Dilshad, Miss Aqila Sultana and Miss Khalida Khatoon Malik, who are respondents 3, 4 and 5 in this case also. This writ petition was dismissed by the High Court in limine on 21st February, 1973, approving the principle applicable to the case for fixing of inter se seniority of the Central Government employees who were transferred to the Provincial Government qua the Provincial Government employees. In the result, we accept this appeal declaring the appellant senior to respondents Nos. 3--23, but reject the appeal against respondent No. 2. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The security deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to him.