A' BDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Mr. Alamgir is working as Sub-Inspector in the Northern Areas Police. He joined service under the Northern Areas Police as LHC with effect from 1- 5-1972 and was promoted as Head Constable on 1-10-1972. Certain promotions were made to the posts of ASI and accordingly the appellant's batch-mates namely Messrs Muhammad Qayyum, Shertullah and Akhtar Hussain were approved but the name of the appellant was not considered inadvertently. He made representation to the D.I.-G. For promotion with effect from 17-1-1974, the date when his batch-mates were promoted as ASI. In the meanwhile, private respondents 3 to 32 were promoted as Sub-Inspectors. The D.I.-G. After having examined the case thoroughly passed the following order dated 29th April, 1981: "ASI ALAMGIR: His case is identical to that of ASI Ali Haider as explained above. He is also given the proper and due place of seniority in the final seniority list under issue."
' The seniority list of Sub-Inspectors was issued to which the appellant was aggrieved and he made representation and in reply the I.-G. Police sent a final seniority list dated 3-8-1992 to the appellant, wherein his name appeared at S.No,
44. Being aggrieved, he filed appeal to the Administrator, Northern Areas on 30-8-1992. There were some other appeals filed by M/s. Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Saleem before this Tribunal for determination of their inter se seniority and in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal, the I.-G. Police communicated the decision on their departmental appeals vide order dated 7-4-1994 to them as also to the appellant, which communication has been impugned in this appeal.
2. Mr. Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was given seniority by the D.I.-G. As A.S.I. In the year 1981 but while preparing the final seniority list, these directions were ignored and the appellant has been placed junior to the respondents. The contention of the learned counsel is that the order passed by the D.I.-G. In 1981 he implemented and appellant be given seniority as ASI over and above the respondents as per contents of the letter dated 29th April, 1981 as his case is identical to that of Ali Haider.
3. The comments have been filed by the respondent-department and we have heard Mr. Fida Ali, Registrar, CPO, N.A. Gilgit. It is argued that in pursuance of the orders of D.I.-G. Passed in April, 1981, the appellant was given seniority as ASI but further development took place and all the private respondents were promoted earlier as ASI than the appellant and, therefore, the seniority lists issued in 11/1990 and August, 1992 pertain to Sub-Inspectors, and the appellant did not challenge the promotions of respondents as SIs in time, this appeal is barred by limitation.
4. There is a bit confusion in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Presently, the appellant and the private respondents are working as Sub-Inspectors and looking to the prayer clauses, he has sought relief to the extent that he may be given seniority as ASI and SI from the date his batch-mates namely Akhtar Hussain, Muhammad Qayyum and Shartullah Khan have been given seniority as ASI and SIs in the impugned seniority list with all consequential benefits. In the comments filed by the respondent-department, it has been stated that final seniority list of ASIs was circulated in 1981 and his name was placed at S.No,
4. He accepted this position and did not challenge. A Therefore, his claim for seniority against final seniority list of SIs is irrelevant and time-barred. In these circumstances, at this stage, we are sorry we cannot extend any relief with regard to seniority as ASI matter stood finally decided by the D.I.-G. Which was acted upon in the year 1981 and now situation has changed and seniority list of SIs is in field. Another point worth consideration is that promotions of ASIs to the post of SIs took place on the basis of seniority lists of 1990 and 1992 which were prepared in accordance with the rules, i.e, the date of regular appointment to the post of ASI/SI, and in the comments it is stated, and not denied by the appellant, that he was promoted to the present rank of SI on 31-7-1982, whereas the private respondents included in the list were promoted much earlier than the appellant. Under Rule 12.12 of the Punjab Police Rules, which are applicable to the Northern Areas Police, seniority is to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment in a particular service or cadre. Admittedly, the promotion of Ali Haider on the basis of which the appellant wants to be equated was promotion on 8-7-1981, earlier than the appellant, and as such the appellant's case on this score fails when he had not challenged the promotions of SIs of the respondents and seniority of SIs has rightly been prepared on the basis of regular promotion and this appeal filed after 13 years is hopelessly time- barred, and we cannot reopen the pandora box after such a long period.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal fails on merits as well as on the point of limitation and is dismissed with costs.