.MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to examine the following question of law arising out of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 4-10-1993 in Appeal No,340(R) of 1991 whereby right of seniority claimed by the appellant was not entertained:-- ' Whether the appellant could count his seniority with effect from the date of his appointment as work-charged Overseer in the Northern Areas P.W.D., in that, all the posts in various offices under the control of the Resident Commissioner for Northern Areas paid out of the development budget and existing on 110-1973? .
' The appellant, who holds a degree of B.Sc in Mechanical Engineering, was initially appointed on 20-10-1973 as Overseer (E&M) in Grade-9 on work-charge basis in the Water and Power Division, Gilgit. On 17-1-1974, he was appointed to officiate as Assistant Executive Engineer (E&M) with effect from 1-1-1974 against a work-charge postpaid from the Head 63-A-Development-Y-2-(1)-"which was held by Muzaffar Abbas who had been earlier appointed to it on work-charge basis with effect from 1-4-1973. Subsequently, by order dated 15-7-1974 the appellant was transferred as Assistant Executive Engineer in Grade-17 on ad hoc basis and posted to Hunza/Nagar Sub-Division of the Water and Power Division, Gilgit. Likewise respondents Nos.5 to 8 were also appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers on officiating/ad hoc basis with effect from 1-1-1974, 24-5-1974, 18-1-1974 and 15-7-1974. Later on, the Ministry of Interior, States and Frontier Regions and Kashmir Affairs issued a letter conveying the sanction of the President to place "all posts in various offices under the control of Resident/Commissioner for Northern Areas paid out of Development Budget as they existed on 16-10-1973, on permanent footing from that date". According to the appellant, since the post to which he had been appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer by order dated 17-1-1974 with effect from 1-1-1974 and which had been vacated by his predecessor-in-office Muzaffar Abbas, existed from 16-10-1973, therefore, it also became regular and permanent from that date. It is further claimed that names of several officers of the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (B-17). Who were Work-Charge/Officiating/Ad hoc, were referred on 28-9-1980 in a pro forma to the Federal Public Service Commission for regularizaton giving seniority position on the basis of initial appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer. The grievance expressed is that the date of initial appointment of Muzaffar Abbas and that of the appellant was shown in that pro forma respectively as 1-1-1974 and 15-7-1974. The appointments of all the officers whose names were so referred to the Commission including the appellant and the private respondents were approved. In the seniority list circulated on 3-3-1987 Muzaffar Abbas was placed at Serial No,1, Ruhullah respondent No,5 at No,6, respondent No 6 at No,7, the appellant at No,8 and one Muhammad Nabi at Serial No,4 who had earlier figured at Serial No,1. In consequence, Muhammad Nabi challenged the reversal of his seniority before the Federal Service Tribunal but without any success. His appeal to this Court was also dismissed. In the consequential seniority list circulated vide letter dated 31-3-1987 Muhammad Nabi was placed junior to Muzaffar Abbas and Muhammad Yaqoob. On seeing the last-mentioned list, the appellant made an appeal/respresentation on 31-3-1987 claiming seniority over one Abdul Amir and the private respondents Nos.5 to 8. "This was followed by another appeal/representation directly addressed to the appellate authority on 30-8-1990 invoking the principle by which seniority was given to Muzaffar Abbas for correction of his date of appointment as A.E.E. On 1-1-1974 instead of 15-7-1974 and that his initial date of entry into service be also taken into consideration". But the appeals/representations made by the appellant were not responded. In the meantime, when Shafqat Ali, respondent No,7, was promoted, the appellant filed Writ Petition No,1183-S of 1990 in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was allowed on 7-7-1991 directing the Secretary, Establishment Division (respondent No,1 therein) "to decide the appellant's departmental appeal within a period of two months". The dismissal order of his departmental appeal was communicated to him on 17-9-1991 against which the appellant filed on 8-10-1991 Appeal No,340(R) of 1991 before the Federal Service Tribunal. This appeal was dismissed on 31-10-1991 in liming. The appellant came up in appeal to this Court which was accepted on 9-6-1993 and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for decision on merits. The first round had thus come to an end.
2. In the second round before the Tribunal it was argued on behalf of the appellant "that Office Order dated 17-1-1974 was very clear and although his appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 1-1-1974 was officiating/temporary but it was regular and never work-charged or on ad hoc basis". The respondents, on the contrary, had placed on record of the Tribunal pay bill of the appellant for the months of February to May, 1974 which established that the appellant had drawn his salary against work-charged post. A copy of letter dated 27-4-1974 under the signatures of the appellant was also produced "wherein he had himself conceded that he had been serving against a work-charged post and that since a regular vacancy of Assistant Executive Engineer (E&M) was being filled in shortly he should be considered for the said post". As a sequel to this, the Tribunal found that the appellant was evidently a work charge employee from 1-1-1974 to 14-7-1974 and had only occupied regular vacancy of Assistant Executive Engineer (E&M) on ad hoc basis with effect from 15-7-1974" and dismissed the appeal.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that Muzaffar Abbas was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 28-3-1973 on work-charged basis but as per Office Memorandum No,1/44/86-R-4 dated 1-2-1987 addressed by the Establishment Division to the Kashmir Affairs and Nothern Affairs Division, the work-charged posts in the Northern Areas P.W.D. As existed on 16-10-1973 had been placed on permanent footing by the competent Authority and that the work-charged employees were also granted the status of regular Government servants.
According to the learned counsel, the claim of seniority raised against one Muzaffar Abbas and Muhammad Nabi, another Assistant Executive Engineer based on the aforestated premise was upheld when the latter challenged it before the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No,315(R) of 1987 and had been upheld by this Court in C.P.LA. No,342-R of 1989, decided on 12-2-1990. The learned counsel, therefore, urged that the appellant having been appointed as work-charged Overseer with effect from 16-10-1973 and later as Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 1-7-1974 whereas the private respondents were appointed much later he ranked senior to them. The legal value of the opinion of the Establishment Division quoted above, apart from the ratio of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal appears to be that since all the posts in various offices under the control of Resident Commissioner for Northern Areas, paid out of development budget as they were existing on 16-10-1973, were brought on permanent footing from that date, the appointment of appellant (Muhammad Nabi) and respondents (Muzaffar Abbas, All Ahmad Jan and Muhammad Yaqoob) against some of those posts sto o d regularized."(Underlining is ours). It was concluded that the respondents (Muzaffar Abbas and two others as aforementioned Executive Engineers than the appellant (Muhammad Nabi), were rightly allowed seniority over the appellant (Muhammad Nabi). Assuming for the sake of argument that this dictum was approved liy this Court in C.P.LA. No,342(R) of 1989, still it is not of any consequence to the appellant, for, it was the earlier appointment of the three private respondents therein as Assistant Executive Engineer than that of Muhammad Nabi appellant the which was upheld as the criterion and not the earlier work- charged appointment either in the lower post or in the higher post. In C.P.LA No,342(R) of 1989, we find no detailed reasoning to uphold the dismissal of appeal of Muhammad Nabi. It cannot, therefore, be cited as a precedent.
4. . The anchor-sheet of the appellant's claim is the letter of the Ministry of Interior, States and Frontier Regions and Kashmir Affairs Division dated 15-12-1973 conveying the sanction of the President "to the placing of all the costs in various offices under the control of Resident Commissioner for Nothern Areas paid out of Development Budget as they existed on permanent footing with effect from that date." (Underlining is again ours). We have not been satisfied that the words "all posts" occurring in the aforesaid letter also included the work-charged posts. Be that as it may and notwithstanding the aforesaid sanction of the competent Authority, all the employees of the posts had not ipso facto attained the status of 'civil servants' within the definition of section 2(1)(b) of the Civil servant Act, 1973, but further concrete official steps had to be taken. Merely because 'all posts had been brought on permanent footing does not turn all categories of the incumbents of those posts to be on permanent footing. There is obviously a marked distinction between placing a post on permanent footing and regularization of an incumbent of that post thereon. There are certain legal formalities to regularize an incumbent on a post which was earlier not on permanent footing. The element of automatic conversion of the of a post on regular basis other than the one placed on permanent footing is not inherent in the Scheme of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. For instance, further process envisaged by the provisions of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, would be resorted to for 'regularizing' a deputations, temporary, ad hoc, contractual or work-charged employee on a 'permanent post'.
5. In the instant case, placing of all the posts on permanent footing notwithstanding, assumption of the incumbents having become regular civil servants for the purposes of promotion and seniority etc., is a serious misconception. Had it been so, there would have been no justification for referring the cases of all such incumbents later on to the Federal Public Service Commission. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the aforesaid sanction of the 'President placing all the posts on permanent footing had not under the service laws automatically conferred upon the incumbents of all the posts the status of regular employees. At best, the aforesaid order can be construed to be a bare sanction placing all the posts on permanent footing and nothing more.
6. Besides, in paras. 2 and 3 of the memorandum of appeal the appellant has himself conceded that he was appointed against a work-charged post of Assistant Executive Engineer which existed since 16-10-1973 and that by order dated 15-7-1974 the appellant was transferred as Assistant Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis. In this view of the matter, the appellant being work-charged employee prior to 15-7-1974 was not a 'civil servant' as defined in section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and, therefore, could not count his seniority for the period he remained employed on work-charged basis notwithstanding the sanction of the competent Authority to bring all the posts in the Northern Areas on permanent footing with effect from 16-10-1973.
7. From what has been discussed above, the date of appointment of the appellant as Assistant Executive Engineer was rightly settled as 15-7-1974. The result is that we do not find any merit in this appeal and, therefore, we would dismiss it. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. .