1. MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO. J:---Petitioner Arif Hussain has sought leave to appeal against a judgment dated 7-7-1996 delivered by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 70(L) of 1996.
2. 2.Petitioner Arif Hussain and respondent No.1 Hafizur Rehman are Sub- Engineers Attendants at the Power Station, Mangla as employees of WAPDA. There is a dispute about seniority between the to.
3. Petitioner Arif Hussain joined WAPDA as Sub-Engineer on 16-3-1976 and later on his services were regularized with effect from 1-3-1977. Respondent No.1 Hafizur Rehman joined WAPDA on being appointed on 26-6-1981 as Sub-Engineer. In seniority list prepared by WAPDA and circulated on 28- 2-1994 the petitioner was shown senior to the respondent No.1 who challenged -the same under Service Appeal No. 191 (1)/94 in the Federal Service Tribunal. Said appeal was disposed of with consent of the contesting parties on 4-10-1994, when the WAPDA was called upon to finalize the seniority list. The seniority list which was finalised. In consequence of such direction on 23-10-1994, showed the respondent No. l at Serial No 32 as against the petitioner shown at Serial No. 52. There was yet a third seniority list dated 8-12-1994 without improvement in seniority position of the petitioner.
4. 3.During the course of his employment as Sub-Engineer, petitioner Arif Hussain was relieved from office of the Executive Engineer, Saline Zone Division II SCARP, Sargodha on 26-5-1980 in pursuance of an order, dated 13th/14th May, 1980 passed by the General Manager (Admn) WAPDA, Lahore, on being surplus, and on 28-5-1980 he reported for duty in office of the Chief Engineer, Mangla, He was posted 'i n office of the Project Engineer, Power Construction, Mangla where he took over as Sub--- Engineer on 28-5-1980. In pursuance of an order dated 30-12-1982 by the Resident Engineer/Chief Engineer, Power Station, Mangla, the petitioner was declared surplus by Power construction Mangla and he was relieved from office of the Project Engineer, Mangla on 28-2-1983. He was to join office of the Resident Engineer/Chief Engineer, Power Station, Mangla. Under an order dated 30-12-1982 the Chief Engineer, Mangla absorbed the petitioner in staff of Chief Engineer/Resident Engineer Power Station, Mangla with effect from 1-1-1983. Under an order dated 30-I-1988 passed by the Resident Engineer, Power Station WAPDA the petitioner was given seniority with effect from 1-3-1983 viz. The date of his absorption in service. Under an order dated 8-12-1994 issued by the Chief Engineer, Mangla, the petitioner was given seniority with effect from 28-5-1980 viz. The date on which he joined Power Construction Office, Mangla, with all service benefits including seniority.
5. 4.The question of seniority between the to Sub-Engineers attained importance because 33 % posts of Diploma Engineers were to be given Selection Grade in BPS-16. The Selection Grade was not given either to the respondent No. l or the petitioner, for want of seniority list.
6. 5.It was respondent No. l Hafizur Rehman who moved the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter mentioned as the Tribunal) because despite petitioner's having been declared surplus from the Power Construction on 30-12-1982 and having been absorbed with effect from 1-3-1983 as an Attendant, he was allowed Selection Grade in BPS-16 with effect from 15-11-1994 under an order dated 5-11-1995 passed by the Resident Engineer, Power Station, Mangla with approval of the Chief Engineer, Mangla. Moreover, in the seniority list of the Operators/ Attendants the petitioner stood at Serial No. 52 while the respondent No. l per the Memo of appeal. Respondent No. 1 took exception to the petitioner's having been given seniority with effect from 28-5-1980 under an order dated 8-12- 1994 passed by the Chief Engineer, Mangla, when earlier representations of the petitioner for seniority from the date of appointment in Project Construction, Mangla were rejected, first one on 30-1-1988 and second one on 3-1-1991. It was added in the memo. Of appeal before the Tribunal that the petitioner's seniority position attained finality when he was placed at Serial No.52 in the seniority list dated 23-10-1994 on the basis of his having been given seniority with effect from 28-2- 1983 viz. The date of his joining Power Station, Mangla after being declared surplus from Power Construction, Mangla. That the department having rejected representation of the petitioner for seniority under the order dated 3-1-1991, could not have reviewed the same order, unchallenged by the petitioner, by passing the order dated 8-12-1994 by which seniority was given to him from 28- 5-1980. Grievance of the respondent No. l before the Tribunal was, that the petitioner being at Serial No.52 in the seniority list dated 23-10-1994 said to be final was placed above him. In his appeal before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 sought setting aside of in the order date 8-12-1994 by which the petitioner was given seniority from 28-5-1980, arid (ii) the order dated 5-11-1995 by which the petitioner was given Selection Grade in BPS-16 with effect from 15-11-1994. Before invoking jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the respondent No. l exhausted the departmental remedy.
7. 6.The matter before the Tribunal was contested by the petitioner as well as by the WAPDA. Under the impugned judgment dated 7-7-1996, the Tribunal accepted appeal of respondent No. 1, set aside the orders dated 8-12-1994 and 5-11-1995 and directed that the seniority position appearing in the seniority list issued on 23-10-1994 shall be restored for grant of Selection Grade in B-16 with effect from the date it was due. Hence this petition.
8. 7.Mr. Mushtaq Masood, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner having been regularised in service with effect from 1-3-1977 was senior to the respondent No. l who joined WAPDA in 1981 and hence the former deserved to be given Selection Grade earlier than the latter. It was next argued that the Selection Grade given to the petitioner on 5-11-1995 was unjustifiably taken away from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of making submissions, stated that a separate cadre of Sub Engineers was maintained in the construction side and a separate cadre was maintained in the power operation side.
9. 8.Policy decision by WAPDA in respect of its employees declared surplus, and then absorbed, is contained in the Letter No.SO(E-I) 1 (1117-B) Admn/2860, dated 16-12-1978 from the Secretary, WAPDA to the Chief Engineer, Admn (Power) WAPDA. Para. 2 of said letter reads as below:-- "The position of surplus employees in WAPDA is such that they are considered to have become surplus to the requirement of a specific office and. Are required to be absorbed in order to provide alternate appointment in their own interest. Therefore, it is not possible to consider them as having.
10. Been transferred from one cadre to another as the posts from which they are declared surplus are abolished. However, on their absorption in an other cadre they are to be placed at the lowest position in the cadre by protection their pay keeping in view this Office Order No.SO(E- 1)/07001/Surplus/Policy/5670717, dated 6-8-1978 that the junior most persons to be declared surplus."
11. Same position was reiterated in a Letter No. S/AD (Gen) 1227/1648 dated 5-4-1990 from the Secretary WAPDA to the General Manager and Project Director, Kalabagh Dam Project. Its para. 2 reads as below: "It is clarified that according to standing instructions, the seniority of surplus staff posted to other formations will be reckoned from the date of joining. In other words such staff will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of relevant cadre. "
12. Under letter No. 375/REM/P-193 (8), dated 30-1-1988 from the Resident Engineer, Power Station,.
13. Mangla to the Operation Engineer Power Station. Mangla, it was pointed out that the seniority of the petitioner was to be reckoned with effect from 1-3-1983 in view of the standing orders of the WAPDA that in respect of surplus staff the seniority of such staff is to be reckoned from the date of their absorption.
14. 9.The office Order No. 712/REM/G-11, dated 30-12-1982 issued by the Chief Engineer, Mangla shows that the petitioner was declared surplus by the Project Director (Construction), Mangla and hence he was absorbed in the staff of Chief Engineer/Resident Engineer Power Station, Mangla with effect from 1-1-1983.
15. Under the impugned judgment dated 7-7-1996 learned Tribunal has reproduced the office order dated 30-12-1982 and the letter dated 30-1-1988 (both mentioned above) and has taken the view as follows:-- "Thus we hold that the respondent No.3 was declared surplus in 1982 by the Project Engineer, Power Construction Mangla and he was absorbed in the Power Station with effect from 1-3-1983 and in accordance with the policy the junior most person in the cadre is declared surplus and on absorption in another cadre such employee is placed in the lowest position in the cadre and his seniority in such new cadre has to be reckoned from the date of absorption. "
16. The impugned judgment further shows that the petitioner's representation dated 14-12-1985, challenging his being placed below the respondent No. l in the seniority list issued in 1995, was rejected by the Resident Engineer, Power Station,- Mangla on 30-1-1988 and such rejection was confirmed by the Assistant Director (Administration) to General Manager Hydel, Lahore and the petitioner was conveyed such decision. Learned Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that after 1985 several seniority lists were issued including the lists issued on 28-2-1994 and 23-10-1994, but the same were not challenged by the petitioner. The reasons given for rejection of petitioner's appeal by the Tribunal are cogent.
17. No case is made out for interference with the impugned judgment. Consequently leave to appeal is refused and the petition stands dismissed.