ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER)----The relevant facts for the disposal of the present service appeal are that, appellant is a permanent employee of the Office of the Auditor-General. He has been working over there as stenographer since 11-11-1985 and is at Sl. No. 3 of the Seniority List. On the other hand the respondent No. 2 is an employee of the Office of D.-G. Railways Audit, Lahore. He came to the Office of the Auditor-General, Islamabad on deputation and posted as Stenographer (B-15) for a period of 3 years with effect from 18-9-1993 vide Office Orders dated 13-9-1993 and 13- 11-1993 respectively.
2. Allegedly instead of waiting for expiry of the period of deputation of the respondent No. 2 and sending him back to his parent office, the competent Authority has ordered his conscription as Stenographer (B-16) in the Office of Auditor-General, vide Order dated 24-1-1996. By the same order he is placed at S. No. 3 of the Seniority List, allegedly the number at which name of the appellant was already there.
3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred a departmental appeal on 24-1-1996, but having received no reply thereto within the statutory period of 90 days, he has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 19-5-1996 within the prescribed period of limitation.
4. Pleading the case of the appellant, the learned counsel argued that placing respondent No.2 at the position No. 3 in the seniority list of selection grade Stenographers of the Office of the Auditor- General was unlawful, unjust and against the norms of justice. In fact, it was emphasised that the respondent being a deputationist should have been placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Selection Grade Stenographers as per prescribed rules on the subject at SI. No. 29, pages 334 to 338 of the ESTACODE, 1989 Edition.
It was further argued that, the deputationist could not be confirmed upon better position in the seniority than a 'regular employee of the equivalent grade of the borrowing department. It was against the relevant rules on the subject. As such, it was stressed that office order dated 24-1-1996 greatly prejudiced the vested right of the appellant, who was actually appointed on 11-11-1985.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant alleged that the appellant was condemned unheard as an outsider was absorbed in violation of his vested right. He, therefore, prayed to accept the appellant's service appeal, and amend the order dated 24-1-1996, by placing respondent No.2 at the bottom of the seniority list.
6. The objections have been filed on behalf of the respondent No. l as well as respondent No. 2. It has been admitted by the respondent No. l that respondent No.2 was Stenographer Grade (B-16) of the Office of the D.-G. Audit, Railways, Lahore. He opted for working on deputation to the A.-G.'s Office, Islamabad. He was selected on deputation with effect from 18-9-1993 for a period of 3 years.
While working as a Personal Assistant to A.-G. Of Pakistan, he was found as hard working and competent official, the Auditor-General, therefore, recommended his case to the Departmental Selection Committee for his absorption. Accordingly his case, alongwith other Stenographers, including the name of the appellant was considered by the Committee, and respondent No.2 was selected for absorption in the public interest. Therefrom respondent No.2's selection/absorption was approved by the competent Authority. As such his selection and resultant absorption was in accordance with law.
7. It has been contended that since respondent No.2 was absorbed in the public interest, hence instruction contained in Chapter III, S.No.36 (v) of the ESTACODE were not relevant in the present case. However, in this context SI.No. 29 para. 6(ii)(b), page 336 of ESTACODE, 1989 is relevant". When a person is compulsorily transferred to an other office as a result of subscription he should be allowed to count his previous continuous service in the grade towards his seniority in that grade and para. 6(ii)(b), page 337 also clarifies that "a deputationist can get the benefit of his continuous service in a grade in the borrowing Ministry/Department if he is appointed against a regular post".
Thus only he has been appointed and subscripted against a regular post, and allowed him to count his previous service, by virtue of which he became senior to the appellant. As such his seniority has correctly been fixed.
8. We have heard the parties at length. In our opinion the main issue to resolve is whether or not a deputationist, on his absorption in new organization carries with him the benefit of his previous service, when it is done in the public interest.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the general principles of seniority as quoted by him, and we have no doubt in our mind if he is not correct. But unfortunately these rules have been replaced by the new rules, known as the 1993 Seniority Rules, these are now in the field hence applicable in the present case. According to rule 4 "Seniority in the service, cadre or post to which civil servant is appointed shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to the service, cadre or post". The General Principles of Seniority circulated vide Establishment Division's O.M.No 1/16/69, D-II, dated 31st December, 1970, and all other existing rules, orders and instructions relating to P seniority have been repealed vide section 7 of the said Seniority Rules. As such the respondent No.2 has to reckon his seniority from the date he was appointed regularly. In this regard, the Tribunal has already given its decision in number of cases.
10. Under. The circumstances, the appeal is accepted and accordingly ordered.
11. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.