' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Mr. Muhammad Riaz is working as Sub- Inspector in the Northern Areas Police under the Inspector-General of Police, Northern Areas, Gilgit.
He has challenged the seniority list issued in 1992 praying that he may be declared senior to respondents Nos. 4 to 29, with all consequential benefits.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant filed earlier appeal but the matter was not being disposed of as it Was yet to be determined as to who was the appellate authority and in view of the directions by this Tribunal issued from time to time the Inspector-General of Police, Northern Areas decided the matter and passed final order on 7th April, 1994. The appellant being aggrieved with this order has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant. It is argued that in all respects the appellant is senior to the private respondents and his seniority is to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment as Sub-Inspector.
4. Mr. Manzoor Elahi Qureshi, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No, 5, Muhammad Saleem, has taken legal points. It is argued that the employees of the Northern Areas are not civil servants as they are not working in connection with the affairs of the Federation and are not members of the service. Of Pakistan, but they are working as Members of the Northern Areas, which is not a part of Pakistan as detailed in the Constitution of Pakistan. In his support, he has referred to the cases reported in PLD 1985 SC (AJK) 62 and 1989 SCMR 347. It is submitted that similar question of jurisdiction is pending in the Supreme Court for which notice has been issued to the Attorney- General of Pakistan. With regard to merits, he argued that respondent No, 5, Muhammad Saleem, joined as Head Constable directly on 27-7-1972 while the appellant was recruited as constable on 7-11-1971, and respondent No, 5 was promoted as ASI on 1-1-1974 earlier than the appellant, therefore, he is senior to the appellant.
5. Mr.Shah Abdur Rashid, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents No, 4, 7 to 14, 16, 17 and 26 submitted that Northern Areas is part and parcel of Pakistan and this practice of entertaining the appeals of the employees of Northern Areas is prevailing since long, therefore, in view of the cases reported in PLD 1970 SC 453 and PLD 1990 SC 612, this objection cannot be taken at this stage. It is argued that de facto control of the Northern Areas rest with the Federation of Pakistan and Inspector-General of Police is the head of that organisation and the Punjab Police Rules are applicable to the Police service of Northern Areas and according to him the objection of learned counsel for respondent No, 5 is not tenable. It is submitted that all respondents are senior to appellant, in all respects, therefore, he cannot claim seniority against them.
6. Mr. M. Javid Aziz Sandhu, Standing Counsel and Mr. Muhammad Anwar Qureshi, Section Officer, KANA Division were heard and it is submitted that all officers of District Management Group, Secretariat Group and the Police Service of Pakistan are posted in the Northern Areas and the recruitment rules and the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of the Federal Government have been applicable to them, therefore, it cannot be said that Northern Areas is not part of Pakistan. It is submitted that appellant was earlier promoted as SIP and rightly given seniority.
7. In the first instance, we propose to deal with the important point raised by Mr. Manzoor Elahi Qureshi, learned Advocate, first time in the history of the Tribunal, otherwise this Tribunal have been exercising its jurisdiction since its establishment with regard to terms and conditions of employees of the Northern Areas. The contention of Mr. Manzoor Elahi Qureshi is that Northern Areas is not a part of Pakistan. It is a matter of interpretation of Constitution and not within our jurisdiction and the Tribunal cannot go in detail and make any pronouncement, but we are only confined whether the employees of Northern Areas are civil servants for the purpose of jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
There is a separate Division established by the Government of Pakistan called as Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, to deal with the affairs of the Northern Areas and that Division is headed by a Secretary to the Government of Pakistan. The Deputy Commissioners; Administrator and the Inspector-General of Police and other officers are posted in the Northern Areas by the Federation of Pakistan and are civil servants and the employees of the Federation. The matter does not end here but the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules and, in the present, the Punjab Police Rules have been adopted for the employees of the Northern Areas, and other expenses and salaries are paid from the Federal Budget. Therefore, at this stage, the argument of the learned counsel for respondent No, 5 that the appellant and the private respondents not being civil servants are not amenable to jurisdiction of this Tribunal, has hardly any force. We also refer to section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 whereunder appeals of civil servants in the Service of Pakistan and other employees working in the Leather Industries Development Organisation, and other Corporations working in connection with the affairs of Federation, are amenable to jurisdiction of this Tribunal, therefore, the employees of the Northern Areas are also working in connection with the Affairs of Federation and are civil servants as defined in section of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No, 5, relate to Constitutional petitions and are distinguishable. The learned counsel for respondent No, 5 also raised objection that the appeal is time-barred. We are sorry we cannot accept this proposition as the appellant has all along been agitating his seniority before this Tribunal and it was on the direction of this Tribunal that the KANA Division was able to get the matter settled by the departmental authority and the appeal is not time-barred.
8. Now we come to the merits. The Inspector-General of Police, Northern Areas, in spite of this long litigation and process, has not taken final decision on the ground that relevant record was not available and in these circumstances we have gone in detail with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and, at the outset, Mr. Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant has frankly submitted that he will not press his claim over other respondents except respondent No, 5, Muhammad Saleem. Therefore, we are only confined to the factual position of seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis respondent No, 5, Muhammad Saleem. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was regularly promoted as Sub-Inspector earlier than respondent No, 5, therefore, he is senior to him. The comparative position of the appellant and respondent No, 5 is given in the following paragraph.
9. The appellant was appointed as Foot Constable on 7-11-1971 while respondent No, 5 was directly appointed as Head Constable on 1-10-1972. Respondent No, 5 was promoted as ASI on 1-1-1974 whereas the appellant was promoted as such on 9-4-1974. The appellant was promoted as Sub- Inspector on 6-11-1974 whereas respondent No, 5 on 1-12-1974, as such the appellant was promoted as S.I. Earlier than respondent No, 5 but the record shows that respondent No, 5" made representation/appeal against his non-placement in the seniority list of SIP's properly and the D.I.- G. Police on 25-11-1990 passed orders allowing him to regain seniority. The order reads as under: "While accepting the appeal filed by SIP Muhammad Saleem, the Administrator, Northern Areas, Gilgit has been pleased to allow him regain his seniority in the lower grade against those ASIPs who, though junior to him, were promoted as SIPs ahead of him vide his Office Order No, Admn- I.4(31)/90, dated 4-11-1990.
In consequence of the above-noted order, S.I. Muhammad Saleem has been given his due place of seniority as per revised seniority list, which is being circulated to all concerned enabling them to make objections, if any."
This order was not challenged by appellant and in view of that order, respondent No, 5 was given seniority and list was issued on 3-8-1992 which reflected the earlier position. As such, the appellant cannot claim seniority.
10. For the reasons recorded above the appeal having no merit is dismissed with costs.