' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant Mr. Gohar Zaman Khan was working as Superintendent in the Military Engineer Services (MES). He has now retired as such at the age of superannuation with effect from 4-6-1994. He earlier filed Appeal No,178(R) of 1994 for promotion to BPS-16 with effect from 31st October, 1993. Pre-admission notice was issued and in pursuance of the notice, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents stated at the Bar that the appellant is eligible for promotion and his case was being considered by the department favourably. With these observations, the appeal was disposed. Thereafter, the D.P.C. Met on 18th May, 1994 and the appellant was promoted as Superintendent with effect from the same date viz. 18-5-1994, and such order was issued on 25th May, 1994. The appellant was not satisfied and he made representation on 30th May, 1994 to the Engineer-in-Chief, with the prayer that his promotion be ante-dated to 31st October, 1993, the date on which his juniors were promoted. The E-in-C vide letter, dated 14th June, 1994 addressed to HG DW&CE (Navy), Islamabad-informed that since no other Assistant Incharge junior to the appellant was promoted earlier than 18th May, 1994, his request for ante-dating his seniority was not approved. With regard to fixation of pay in BPS-16, it was pionted out that under the recruitment rules published in the Gazette Notification, dated 23-1- 1986, the pay scale of Superintendent was BPS-14 and the appellant was not entitled to BPS-16 unless and until the same scale is made applicable to the employees of M.E.S. The appellant was conveyed the aforesaid decision vide letter, dated 26th June, 1994. Being aggrieved with this reply, he filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 24-7-1994 with the following prayer:--
(a) ante-date seniority alongwith junior/batch with back benefits;
(b) fixation of pay in BPS-16 (already drawn pay in BPS-15 plus Rs, 100 p.m. As special pay) in the existing pay scales (1991) up to 31-5-1994 and vice versa in the Revised Pay Scales 1994.
2. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents and we have heard the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel and the representative of the respondent Department. It is argued by the appellant that his promotion as Superintendent be ante-dated. To this, the representative of the department stated that his juniors Messrs Muhammad Azad and Muhammad Arif who were promoted as Superintendent with effect from 31st October, 1993 by order, dated 1st December, 1993, as they had passed the departmental examination earlier than the appellant, and therefore, they are senior to him and no injustice has been done to the appellant. It is also argued that D.P.C. Was held in October, 1993 for promotions as Superintendent but name of the appellant. Was not considered. The question for consideration is whether the juniors were earlier promoted as Superintendents to the appellant or not. On this score, it is an admitted position that the appellant had not qualified departmental examination at the relevant time and, therefore, his juniors having qualified the departmental examination, were rightly promoted earlier as Superintendent, and those persons are not party to this appeal, no adverse order can be passed against them and this appeal suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. We are of the view that no case has been made out for ante-dation of his promotion. The other contention of the appellant is that in view of the Finance Division Office Memorandum No, F.2(1) RI-80-DI-R-4/80, dated 8-1-1980 whereunder posts of Superintendents in the Attached Departments have been placed in BPS-16, his pay may also be fixed in BPS-16. This decision is applicable only to the Attached Departments and A.F.H.Q., and not to the Subordinate Offices, and the representative of the department has categorically stated that their department has not implemented this decision in case of their employees, and the matter is still under correspondence and as such there appears no discrimination. We cannot make such a declaration to force the deparmtent to extend this benefit to its employees. Whatever the case may be the appellant has been promoted as Superintendent in pursuance of the decision of this Tribunal, and his case was fully considered by D.P.C., therefore, the scope of this Tribunal is very limited to the extent of eligibility which has been determined by the competent Authority. The case merits no consideration and the appeal is dismissed in limine.