RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER): --Appeals Nos. 57, 58 and 59(R) of 1994.
The learned counsel had stated that the appellant, Iftikhar Anjum had been aggrieved on three different accounts viz. Promotion of his one junior, M. Javed as Superintendent (B-16) in Appeal No. 57(R)/94, promotion of his other junior Azmat Khan as Assistant Incharge (B-15) in Appeal No.58(R)/94 and promotion of another junior, M. Adam as Superintendent (B-16) in Appeal No.59(R)/94 in the Narcotics Control Division (NCD) which were done without following the proper procedure and relevant rules. He had clarified that the appellant, Iftikhar Anjum had been working as Assistant (B--11) in the Interior Division with effect from 14-6-1981 and he had been transferred to the NCD with effect from 10-3-1991 alongwith post and job. The learned counsel had impressed upon that the appellant was senior to respondents M/s. M. Javed, Azmat Khan and M. Aslam by virtue of his senior appointment as Assistant in the Interior Division and it was an irony of fate and mala fide that being senior, he had not been considered for promotion as Superintendent and Assistant Incharge, whereas the said juniors had been promoted by ignoring his position. He had also mentioned that NCD was in fact originally part and parcel of the Interior Division and at present it was still under the administrative control of Ministry of Interior. As such the respondent- Division should have not ignored the original seniority of the appellant as Assistant (B-11) in the Interior Division from 14-6-1981 and not promoted the private respondents in preference to him. This was victimisation of the appellant and mala fide action of the respondent Division by not considering the appellant being senior to the said respondents and ignoring him from his genuine turn of promotion. The learned counsel had made prayers as under: "In Appeal No.57(R)/94Under the circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the orders dated 26- 6-1989 and 17-1-1994 may kindly be set aside/amended/varied and respondent No.1 directed to revert respondent No.3 to his Parent Department and to process the case of the appellant and place it before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration for promotion to the post of Superintendent in the Narcotics Control Division vice respondent No.3 in accordance with rules, with the least possible delay."
In Appeal No.58(R)/94--Under the circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the orders dated 30-1-1990 and 17-1-1994 may kindly be set aside/modified/varied and respondent No.1 directed to revert the respondent No.3 to the post of Assistant and to process appellant's case and place it before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Incharge vice respondent No.3 in accordance with rules with the least possible delay.
In Appeal No.59 (R)/94 -Under the circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the orders dated 1- 8-1989 and 17-1-1994 may kindly be set aside/amended/varied and respondent No.1 directed to revert the respondent No. 3 to the post of Assistant in the Narcotics Control Division/Interior Division and process the case of the appellant and place it before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration for promotion vice respondent No. 3 in accordance with rules with the least possible delay."
He had, therefore, requested that the appeals be accepted and the appellant be considered for promotion and given seniority over and above the said private respondents.
2. The learned Standing Counsel (Mr. M. Javid Aziz Sandhu), departmental representatives (M/s. Nasar Muhammad and Ghayur Abbas) and the learned counsel (Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqi) appearing on behalf of the private respondents had precisely explained the situation of promotion given to the private respondents writ (sic) the appellant's three appeals and had briefly stated that facts/merits as under:
(i) Appeal No.57 (R)/94.--That NCD had been formed in the year 1989 and the private respondent 3, M. Javed, Assistant had joined in the same year and since there were no other Assistants in queue, he had been given promotion as Superintendent (B-16) with effect from 26-6-1989. The appellant had been working in the Interior Division then and he had not been sent to NCD. As such his claim of seniority and promotion over and above respondent 3, M. Javed was totally misconceived, invalid and incompetent, because he after approximate two years had joined the NCD as Assistant with effect, from 10-3-1991 i.e. Much later than respondent 3, M. Javed.
(ii)Appear No 58(R)/94 -That the private respondent 3, Azmat Khan, Assistant has been promoted as Assistant Incharge with effect from 30-1-1990, because there were no other senior Assistants available/working then in the NCD who had been ignored. Since the appellant had joined NCD with effect from 10-3-1991 i.e. Much later than the promotion of respondent 3, Azmat Khan, his claim of seniority/promotion over respondent 3 was misconceived and incompetent.
(iii)Appeal No. 59 (R)/94.--That the private respondent 3, M. Aslam, Assistant had been promoted as Superintendent (B-16) with effect from 1-8-1989, when there were no other Assistants senior to him in the NCD. Since the appellant had joined the NCD as Assistant with effect from 10-3-1991 i.e. Much--later than respondent 3, his claim for seniority/promotion/grievance over respondent 3 were without merit and substance.
3. Further the learned counsel and the departmental representatives had stated that the promotion of private respondents namely M/s. Javed, Azmat and Aslam had taken ground effect in the years 1989 and 1990, had not represented/agitated this point of grievance in 1991, if he had at all any such grievance against the private respondents, his departmental representation made on 6-3-1993 was badly time-barred. The representation had also been rejected vide Memo dated 17- 1-1994. They had pleaded that the appeals were totally misconceived and incompetent and also badly hit by limitation factor and as such these should be dismissed with costs.
4. Regarding Appeals Nos.60, 61 and 62(R)/94 filed by another appellant, M. Iqbal. Assistant, against the same respondents namely M. Javed, Azmat Khan and M. Adam for similar grievance/relief against them, the learned counsel for the appellant had presented the same facts and merits, as were done by him in the connected appeals filed by the appellant, Iftikhar Anjum. He had mentioned that the appellant was senior as Assistant to the said respondents and he had not been considered for promotion by the respondent Division by ignoring him and promoting the said juniors. He had prayed for acceptance of appeals and for relief for promotion etc. As mentioned in Appeals Nos. 60, 61 and 62 (R)/94.
5. The learned counsel (M/s. M. Javid Aziz Sandhu and Fazal Elahi Siddiqi) for the respondent Division and private respondents and the departmental representatives (M/s. Nasar Muhammad and Ghayur Abbas) had clarified that the private respondents namely Javed, Azmat and Aslam had been promoted during the years 1989 and 1990, whereas the appellant had been transferred to the NCD with effect from 10-3-1991 i.e. Much later that the actual promotion of the private respondents. As such his claim for seniority/promotion over the private respondents was totally misconceived and incompetent. They had further mentioned that appellant had joined NCD during March, 1991 and if the private respondents were junior to him and their promotions had aggrieved him, he should have made---- Departmental representation and followed by an appeal to this Tribunal during 1991. This had not been done by the appellant. He had made the departmental representation in May, 1993 and this had been rejected by the respondent Division vide Memo dated 17-1-1994. They had mentioned that the claim and representation of both appellants were badly hit by limitation factor for which although they had submitted an application for condonation of delay, but it was without convincing ' reasons, justification and merit. Accordingly their contention and claim for seniority/promotion was time-barred.
6. Under these circumstances and after hearing the parties we find that the Appeals Nos. 57, 58 and 59(R)/94 filed by the appellant, Iftikhar Anjum and identical Appeals Nos. 60, 61 and 62(R)/94 filed by the appellant, M. Iqbal are hit by limitation and are misconceived and incompetent, as the private respondents M/s. Javed, Azmat and Aslam stood promoted during 1989 and 1990, whereas the appellants had joined the respondent Division during 1991. Accordingly no interference is legally required to disturb the order of seniority of the private respondents and their promotions etc. All the six identical appeals are without merit and substance and are accordingly dismissed. No order for costs. Parties be informed.