1. RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER).---The learned counsel had referred to the Seniority List of 1989, wherein primarily the appellants had peen shown senior to some of the private respondents Nos.4 to 14, indicated s under:-- Appellant Mr. Jan Muhammad at Sl. No. 11 Appellant Mr. M. Rafiq Mirza at Sl. No. 13 Appellant Masood Aslam Dar at Sl. No. 15 Appellant M. Anwar at Sl. No. 17 Appellant M. Aslam at Sl. No. 18 Respondent 4 Ali Afsar at Sl. No. 20 Respondent 5 Ali Ahmad at Sl. No. 21 Respondent :6 Abdul Rehman at Sl. No. 22 Respondent 7 M. Fayyaz Hashmi at Sl. No. 23 Appellant M. Anis at Sl. No. 24 Respondent 8 Altaf Hussain at Sl. No. 26 Respondent 9 Saleem A. Alvi at Sl. No. 27 Respondent 10 M. Asghar Jarral at Sl. No. 28 Respondent 11 M. Akram-I at Sl. No. 29 Respondent 12 Manzur Naeem at Sl. No. 30 Respondent 13 S. Munawar H. Shah at Sl. No. 31 Respondent 14 Abdul Rashid Awan at Sl. No. 32 In the meantime respondent No. 5, Ali Ahmed had submitted an appeal (No. 19(R)/90) which had been remanded by the Tribunal to the respondent Ministry with specific directions to take into consideration the quota share of direct and promotee Stenographers in accordance with relevant rules and then prepare the seniority for circulation/objections.
2. The Ministry had circulated Provisional Seniority List on 28-4-1993 and then a Final Seniority List on 3-7-1993, wherein the seniorities of the appellants had been reversed and private respondents shown senior, indicated as under:-- Respondent No. 4 Ali Afsar.
2. Sl. No.6 Direct appointee Respondent No. 5 Ali Ahmad.
3. 7 Appellant Jan Muhammad.
4. 9 Promotee Appellant M. Rafiq Mirza 11 Respondent No. 6 12 Direct appointee Respondent No. 7 M. Fayyaz Hashmi.
5. 14-a Appellant Masood Aslam Dar 14-b Promotee Respondent No. 8Altaf Hussain.
6. 15-a Direct appointee Respondent No. 9 Saleem Ahmad Alvi 15-b Respondent No: 10 M. Asghar Jarral.
7. 16-a Respondent No. 11 Muhammad Akram-I 16-b Direct appointee Respondent No. 12 Manzar Naeem.
8. 17 Respondent No.13S. Munawar Hussain Shah.
9. 18 Respondent No. 14 Abdul Rashid Awan.
10. 19 Appellant Muhammad Anwar.
11. 20 Promotee Appellant Muhammad Aslam.
12. 21 Appellant Muhammad Anis.
13. 25 The above change/revision of inter se seniority positions of the appellants vis-a-vis private respondents had aggrieved the appellants who had made departmental representations, but these were not acceded to. Hence they submitted these instant appeals to the FST.
3. The learned counsel had stated that the change in the seniority list made by the respondent Ministry was not in accordance with the rules, Civil Servants Act, Clause VIII(2) & O.M. No.1/5/58-ME, dated 22-10-1959 of Establishment Manual, Vol. III. He had also quoted judgments 1992 SCMR 72 and 1993 SCM R 2258 in his support. He had mentioned that since the appellants (being promotee Stenographers) had been promoted/appointed as Stenographers much earlier than the private respondents, they should rank senior to the private respondents 4 to 14 who were appointed later than them. Their positions with their dates of promotion vis-a-vis the date of direct appointees of respondents 4 to 14 were quoted as under:-- Name Date of temporary appointment/promotion Ali Afsar (Respondent 4)
14. 4-3-1976 Ali Ahmad (Respondent 5)
15. 11-3-1976 Jan Muhammad (Appellant)
16. 5-10-1974 M. Rafiq Mirza (Appellant)
17. 11-2-1975 Abdul Rahman (Respondent 6), 8-11-1976 M. Fayyaz Hashmi (Respondent 7)
18. 1-2-1977 Masood Aslam Dar (Appellant)
19. 25-5-1975 Altaf Hussain (Respondent 8)
20. 2-10-1977 Saleem Ahmad Alvi (Respondent 9)
21. 11-10-1977 M. Asghar Jarral (Respondent 10)
22. 21-11-1977 Muhammad Akram-I (Respondent 11)
23. 23-9-1978 Manzar Naeem (Respondent 12)
24. 16-8-1979 S. Munawar Hussain Shah (Respondent 13)
25. 17-6-1980 Abdul Rashid Awan (Respondent 14)
26. 14-1-1981 Muhammad Anwar (Appellant)
27. 16-1-1976 Muhammad Aslam (Appellant)
28. 16-1-1976 Muhammad Anis (Appellant)
29. 1-3-1977 Accordingly the appellants should have been placed senior and their inter se seniorities reckoned from these dates for promotion/appointment. He had emphasised that seniority list issued in 1989 was correct and it did not legally require any change at a belated stage during 1993 by the respondent Ministry. He had, therefore, requested for acceptance of the appeals and restoration of appellants' inter se seniorities over the private respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent Ministry and the private respondents who were present had stated that as a result of remand of appeal No.19(R)/90 filed earlier by the respondent No. 5 Ali Ahmad (then appellant), the Ministry had changed the seniorities of the direct Stenographers vis-- --vis the promotee Stenographers keeping in view the direct/promotion quota of appointments/promotions under the relevant rules. In fact the Ministry, after the remand of Appeal No.191(R)/90 on 14-10-1992 and under directions from the PST, had prepared/circulated provisional seniority list on 28-4-1993 and final seniority list on 3-7-1993. Further they had mentioned that this was partially correct that, although some of the appellants had temporarily been promoted as Stenographer (against the direct posts) earlier than the private respondents; but, since in their regular appointments/promotions as Stenographers the dates of direct appointment of the private respondents were earlier than the appellants' promotions, they were accordingly shown senior in the revised final seniority list of 3-7-1993. The dates of regular appointments/promotions of the respondents and appellants were given as under:-- Name Date of temporary Date of appointment/ promotion Regular appointment against quota post Respondent 4 (Ali Afsar) 4-3-1976 4-3-1976 Respondent 5 (Ali Ahmad)
30. 11-3-1976 11-3-1976 Appellant (Jan Muhammad)
31. 5-10-1974 16-9-1976 Appellant (M. Rafiq Mirza)
32. 11-2-1975 8-10-1976 Respondent 6 (Abdul Rahman)
33. 8-11-1976 8-11-1976 Respondent 7(M. Fayyaz Hashmi)
34. 1-2-1977 1-2-1977 Appellant (Masood Aslam Dar)
35. 25-5-1975 25-4-1977 Respondent 8 (Altaf Hussain)
36. 2-10-1977 2-10-1977 Respondent 10 (M. Asghar Jarral)
37. 21-11-1977 21-11-1977 Respondent 11(Muhammad Akram-I)
38. 23-9-1978 23-9-1978 Respondent 12 (Manzar Naeem)
39. 16-8-1979 16-8-1979 Respondent 13 (S. Munawar Hussain Shah)
40. 17-6-1980 17-6-1980 Respondent 14 (Abdul Rashid Awan)
41. 14-1-1981 14-1-1981 Appellant (Muhammad Anwar)
42. 16-1-1976 3-5-1981 Appellant (Muhammad Aslam)
43. 16-1-1976 16-1-1976 Appellant (Muhammad Anis)
44. 1-3-1977 22-7-1982 The dates of regular appointments/promotions were in fact the true picture of ``. Their inter se seniorities which should be recknoned accordingly. Hence the appeals were devoid of merits and substance and these should be dismissed.
5. Under the aforementioned circumstances and after hearing the parties, we find that the seniority list of 1-2-1989 had been changed by the respondent's Ministry with respect to partial acceptance/remand of Appeal No. 19(R)/1990, heard on 4-10-1992 and judgment issued on 31-10- 1992. We, therefore, conclude that the departmental action for circulating revised seniority list on 3- 7-1993 was fair and justified and it does not require any interference. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed with, no order for costs. Parties be informed.