AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 20-4- 1992 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No. 41 of 1991 filed by the appellant against the seniority list dated 1-8-1990, whereby the appellant was placed at. S. No. 10, whereas respondents Nos. 4 to 8 were placed at S. Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, dismissing the same. Leave to appeal was granted to consider; whether in view of subsection (2) of section 5 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments) Act, 1989 (Act VII of L1 1989), hereinafter referred to as the Act, the appellant and respondents Nos. 4 to 8's seniority inter alia should have been reckoned from the date of joining and not from the date of appointment.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant and respondents Nos. 4 to 8 were appointed on 25-8-1987 through separate orders as Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) on the ad hoc basis. Upon enactment of the Act through a notification dated 2-4-1990, their services were regularized by virtue of subsection, (1) of section 3 of the same. It appears that in the seniority lists prepared on 14- 5-1990 and 13-6-1990, the appellant was placed above respondents Nos. 4 to 8 but upon the appeal filed by respondents Nos. 4 to 8, they were shown senior to the appellant in the seniority list dated 1-8-1990, hereinafter referred to as the seniority list. The appellant filed a departmental appeal against the seniority list but as it was not decided within 90 days, he filed the above service appeal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by the judgment under appeal inter alia for the following reasons:-- "In our opinion the words "continuous appointment" hereinabove refer to continuous regular appointment. Even if the; continuous appointment in this case was extended to include the period of ad hoc appointment, still the date of ad hoc appointment of the. Appellant and the private respondents being the same namely 25-8-1987, their inter se seniority will be determined in terms of the proviso following section 5 of the Act of 1989. The dates of joining duties cannot be taken as continuous dates of appointment because . Following the issuance of the orders of ad hoc appointments, the appointees joined their duties as and when the circumstances permitted them to do so. The fact that they joined their duties on different dates is a clear proof that they were placed in different situation, otherwise no appointee was expected to make any delay even for hours in joining his duties. As such the dates of joining duties in a case like the present one, have never been accepted as the starting point of seniority."
Thereupon, the appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal, which was granted to consider the above question.
3. In support of the above appeal, Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has invited our attention to the last column of the seniority list dated 14-5-1990 indicating that the appellant and respondents Nos. 4 to 8 joined service on the following dates: -- Appellant: 27-8-1987 Respondent No. 45-9-1987 Respondent No. 519-9-1987 Respondent No. 710-9-1987 Respondents Nos. 6 and 8:30-8-1987 His submission was that as the appellant had joined service earlier in point of time than respondents Nos. 4 to 8 as indicated above, he was to be treated senior in view of subsection (2) of section 5 of the Act which provides that "the inter se seniority of the civil servants whose services are regularized under this Act within the same service or cadre, shall be determined on the basis of their continuous appointment in such service or cadre;". According to him, the expression "their continuous appointment in such service or cadre" relates to the date of joining and as the appellant had joined earlier in point of time, the respondent-department and the Tribunal were not justified in treating him junior to respondents Nos. 4 to 8.
On the other hand, Messrs Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the department and M.L. Shahani, learned ASC appearing for respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 7, have urged that the above expression "their continuous appointment in such service or cadre" has nothing to do with the joining date of service but it refers to the break in service. According to them, as the appellant and respondents Nos. 4 to 8 were appointed on the same date, the proviso to subsection (2) of section 5 of the Act which provides that "provided that where the dates of their continuous appointment are the same, the older in age shall rank senior to the younger in age" shall regulate the seniority inter se between the appellant and respondents Nos. 4 to 8.
4. In our view, the keywords in above subsection (2) of section 5 of the Act are "continuous appointment" the word "appointment" has been prefixed by the word "continuous". The latter word has been defined in the following dictionaries as under:-- The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Seventh Edition "continuous" a.(Of material things) connected, unbroken; uninterrupted in time br sequences;
(Gram) progressive; Chamber---s Twentieth Century Dictionary 1981 Edition: "continuos" joined together without interruption.
The Short, r Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 1 1980 Edition "continuous" uninterrupted 1. Characterized by continuity; extending in space without a break; having its parts in immediate connection; connected, unbroken,
2. Uninterrupted in time, sequence, or essence; going on without interruption.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language "continuous" adj.
1. Extending or prolonged without interruption or cessation; unceasing. 2.
Mathematics. Designating a function of one or more variables in which the variation of its values can be made arbitrarily small in a sufficiently small neighbourhood of every point in a given interval.
Black's Law Dictionary. Fifth Edition "continuous" Uninterrupted; unbroken; not intermittent or occasional; so persistently repeated at short intervals as to constitute virtually an unbroken series. Connected, extended or prolonged without cessation or interruption of sequences.
The above word "continuous" carries inter alia the meaning "uninterrupted, unbroken, not intermittent or occasional etc."
5. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that keeping in view the meaning . Of the word "continuous" given in the above dictionaries, the expression "continuous appointment" refers to uninterrupted in sequence of time, unbroken service. It has nothing to do with the date of joining of service. Since in the present case the appellant and respondents Nos. 4 to 8 were appointed 8 on the same date and were regularized on the same date and as there was no break in service of either of the appellant or of respondents Nos. 4 to 8, the proviso to subsection (2) of section 5 of the Act referred to hereinabove shall regulate the seniority inter se between the appellant and respondents Nos. 4 to 8. As admittedly respondents Nos. 4 to 8 are older in age as compared to the appellant, they shall rank senior to him, Messrs Abdul Ghafoor Mangi and M.L. Shahani have also referred to Rule. 10 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, which provides as follows:-- "10.--(1) Subject to the provision of rule 11, the seniority of a civil servant shall be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment.
(2)No appointment made on ad hoc basis shall be regularized retrospectively."
According to them that if we were to accept Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid's above contention, it would contravene the above rule as it contemplates that the seniority of a civil servant is to be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment and that no appointment made on ad hoc basis shall be regularized. Retrospectively. On the other hand, Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned counsel for the appellant, has invited our attention to subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act, which provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or rules thereunder, or in any decree, order or judgment of a Court, but subject to the other provisions of this Act, a civil servant holding ad hoc appointment against a post on or before the 12th day of October, 1988 and continuing as such till the commencement of this Act, shall, on orders made in that behalf, be deemed to have been validly appointed to that post on regular basis with effect from the date of commencement of this Act". According to him, in view of the above non obstante clause, the above rule 10 or any other rule or provision of the Civil Servants Act cannot be pressed into service.
6. His contention seems to be correct as the Act itself provides section 5 for fixing the seniority. In presence of section 5 and in view of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act, no provision can be imported either from, the Civil Servants Act or the rules. However, the above conclusion does not, in any way, affect the decision of the above appeal.
7. The judgment under appeal seems to be unexceptionable. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
However, there will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.