' MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER).---This judgment will dispose of two other appeals of identical nature as similar questions of law and facts with minor alterations are involved in all these three appeals .
2. Briefly stated, the facts in the background of these appeals are that the Income Tax Organization at Peshawar constituted as one Zone. However, in the beginning of 1994, it was decided to bifurcate it from single Zone into two Zones for the purposes of providing facility to tax-payers, to broaden the tax base and streamlining the recovery process. All the existing staff of Peshawar Zone, was to be provided the opportunity to opt for either of the two Zones. Options were invited and certain lists were prepared. In March, 1994, the single Zone was bifurcated into two Zones called Zone ' A', and Zone 'B'. Zone ' A' consisted of Peshawar Cantonment and the Northern Districts of N.W.F.P., whereas Zone 'B' comprised of Peshawar City and Districts falling towards South of Peshawar. Those who opted for either of the Zones, were transferred to the said Zone. However, those officials who did not exercise their choice were placed in the Zone in which they were posted prior to the bifurcation. On creation of new Zones, shifting of employees created certain problems of determination of inter- se-seniority, loss of seniority and consequently loss of financial benefits. The present appeals are also the result of such apprehended loss of seniority as well as financial benefits. All the three appellants are presently working in Zone-B, at Peshawar. The appellant, Taj Muhammad alleges that he was placed at Serial No, 33 in the seniority list as it existed prior to the bifurcation of Peshawar Zone and respondents Nos. 5 to 10 in his appeal were stated to be junior to him. However, they were transferred to Zone-A and a separate seniority list was prepared for the said Zone, therefore, the respondents were promoted vide impugned orders dated 30-5-1995 and allowed Selection Grade B-14. The said appellant contends that he was senior to the said respondents and was ripe for the grant of selection grade in 1994 when bifurcation took place and his juniors in Zone-A were allowed facility. Whereas he had suffered financial setback as he has been deprived of the said benefit. He alleges that his name was also placed in the list of employees to he posted in Zone-A and at the time of his representation the immediate officers have strongly supported his case by reiterating that he was senior and was also recommended for placing in Zone-A and that his seniority should not be disturbed by the process of bifurcation. The appellant also stated that despite the bifurcation, the seniority list should have been prepared by both the Zones in a combined form. The appellant, Rast Baz Khan (Appeal No,36 (P) of 1996), has stated that although he had opted for Zone-B and consequently was placed in Zone-B, but since ke was senior to other colleagues prior to bifurcation, therefore, his seniority should not have been disturbed and a combined seniority list should have been prepared of both the Zones. This appellant further added that in 1981, he had improved his qualification in comparison with the post held by him at that time but he was not granted advance increments for the higher qualification. He has further prayed that he had been performing the additional duties from 6-4-1995 to 25-1-1996 but the department has not paid the admissible financial benefits for the additional charge. The third appellant (Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan, Appeal No, 38(P) of 1996), stated that no option has been invited from him but in accordance with policy he was posted in his area of posting falling with territorial jurisdiction of Zone-A and, therefore, allowed, without option, to have retained his position in the same zone. He states that after the bifurcation, he continued posted at Zone-A where he was earlier holding the charge and he remained there for 8 months after the bifurcation of the zones, however, in November, 1994, a corrigendum was issued and he was shifted to Zone-B. He has challenged the grant of benefit of selection grades to the respondents on the ground that he should have been allowed the benefits of his seniority as well as the facility of selection grade on the basis of his previous seniority and his earlier posting in Zone-A. All the three appellants have maintained that Peshawar Zone has been bifurcated into two Zones, but the bifurcation was for a different purpose, as stated therein-before, and should not have disturbed the hard earned seniority position against their junior colleagues since both the Zones fall within the same Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, their combined seniority list should have been prepared and maintained at the level of Regional Commissioner in accordance with the precedent of Multi-Zonal Regions of Karachi and Lahore where the seniority lists are maintained at regional level of all the Zones and not on the independent zonal basis. After seeking departmental remedies the appellants have approached this Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
3. The respondent department as well as some of the private respondents contested the appeals stating therein that the seniority lists of the Income Tax staff of B-1 to B-15 was always maintained at the Zonal basis whereas the seniority lists of Gazette Officers is maintained on the All Pakistan Basis and hence both the Zones have legally maintained separate seniority lists and officials posted in either of the Zones have been given the benefits of the vacancies in selection grade according to the seniority on zonal basis. It was also stated that the appellants did not opt for Zone-A and did not agitate the issue in time. The respondent department further stated that option exercised is considered to be final and, therefore, the appellants are estopped to open the issue at this belated stage.
4. We have listened to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, Taj Muhammad. The appellant, Rast Baz Khan argued the case in person. The appellant, Abdul Hamid Khan also adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of his two other colleagues and supplemented the arguments by his own because his learned counsel was reported to he out of the city, however, in view of the identical nature of case, he did not ask for adjournment. Mr. Javed Aziz Sandhu, Standing Counsel, assisted by the representative of the respondent department, appeared for the official respondents.
5. The case of Taj Muhammad and Abdul Hamid Khan (appellants) with regard to allocation of zone is identical. Their names have been placed in the list of employees to be posted in Zone-A.
However, there is no denial of the fact that their names were mentioned in the list of employees earmarked for Zone-A either by exercising the right of option or by operation of policy of bifurcation. The appellant in Appeal No,3(P) of 1996 (Mr. Taj Muhammad), was not allowed to join Zone-A whereas the appellant in Appeal No,38(P) of 1996 (Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan) continued to be posted for almost 8 months, thereafter, he was shifted to Zone-B by way of corrigendum. While commenting on the representation of the appellant Taj Muhammad, for restoration of seniority and grant of selection grade, the inspecting Additional Commissioner Income Tax and Wealth Tax Range strongly supported the contention of the appellant. The Policy Circular issued on 19-2-1994 also supports the case of the appellant. They were proposed to be posted in Zone-A and one of the said appellants had remained posted there for a long time, therefore, they could not be deprived of the benefits admissible in Zone-A, even if the arguments of loss of seniority as a result of bifurcation, is accepted.
6. The perusal of the policy letter, dated 19-2-1994, however, shows that the objection of re- organisation, as stated in para. I thereto, was for the benefits of the tax-payers and to improve the quality .Of process, recovery and control of the system of collection of taxes and the methodology was clearly earmarked wherein it has been stated that the seniority list of officials may be compiled by either CIT/RCIT on the basis of dates of joining by the members in their respective grades. It was, however, stated that at Lahore and Karachi being the multi-zonal stations, the combined seniority lists will be maintained by the Regional Office in respect of the staff posted in all the Zones. The representatives of the respondent department as well as the learned Standing Counsel conceded that apart from Lahore and Karachi, Peshawar is the only other station where there are more than Zones. As reproduced herein above, the seniority list is to be maintained at the level of CIT or RCIT and this option has been provided to facilitate the maintenance of seniority list either on Zonal basis or on Regional level. Seniority list on Zonal basis can be maintained when the Zones are in existence independently but in case of multi-zonal stations, the provision of maintaining seniority at the level of. Regional Commissioner of Income-Tax was provided in the circular of C.B.R. Thus at the multi-zonal stations, the seniority list has to be maintained on the regional basis particularly when the creation of the new Zones is the result of bifurcation of the existing independent Zone. Seniority of official cannot be disturbed when bifurcation is affected for the purpose of benefits to the tax-payers and the State.
7. The Seniority Rules of civil servants have been framed in 1993, independent of the general instructions contained in the chapter of General Principle of Seniority in the ESTACODE. The seniority Rules 1993, lays down that seniority is always determined on the basis of regular appointment in a service, cadre or post. Keeping in view the said rules, it is to be held that the employees of both the zones (A & B) of Peshawar have to reckon their seniority from the date of their initial appointment to the post of Inspectors which further supports the proposition that a combined seniority list of both the zones has to be maintained at the regional level. The arguments that the cadre of both the zones was different and, therefore, the employees in each zone shall reckon their independent seniority from the date of regular appointment, will not hold any force for the reasons that the appointment of the civil servants was not independently made at each zone so as to constitute separate cadre. Both the zones were previously one zone and with the creation of the new zones fresh appointments were not made rather the employees of the same zones were shifted on the basis of choice or convenience. This shifting of officials with the objective of streamlining the tax collection system and providing the facility to the tax-payers cannot, at all, amount to the deprivation of benefits of seniority already earned, which may also amount to favoritism and discrimination. It may further be added that the posts of both the zones are inter-transferable and inter-zonal transfer is a normal phenomenon in the department. Inter-zonal transfer, as a routine matter, will attract different principles of determination of seniority than the transfer at the request from one cadre to another whereby the transferees are liable to loose their seniority in the new cadre. In such a situation where the inter-zonal transfers are frequent, in the interest of public service, the maintenance of seniority at the regional level become all the more necessary, whereby the zones will not become water-tight compartments, but there will he flexibility in the larger interest of better service to the tax-payers and State.
8. The policy circular lays down stress on the invitations of options and when such options are given they have to be honoured in accordance with the policy circulated on 19-2-1994. The list dated 10-3-1994 shows that two appellants appear in the list prepared for Zone-A, either on the basis of their option or due to the previous posting falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the said zone. These two appellants have got a vested right to demand the benefits in Zone-A, on the basis of their previous seniority position despite the fact that, for the sake of arguments, the zones are considered to be entirely independent entity.
9. Before parting with the judgment, it may also be mentioned that the appellant Mr. Rast Baz Khan, in Appeal No,36(P) of 1996_ had also requested for grant of advance increments with effect from August, 1981, on the basis of higher qualification and had also prayed for payment of official benefits for the period from 6-4-1995 to 25-1-1996 for holding additional duties. So far as the first claim of advance increments is concerned, the claim is definitely barred by time, the matter of 1981 cannot be agitated in 1996 after the lapse of 15 }tars. However, the claim of additional benefits for the services rendered Tor a period of nine months was justified and the appellant was entitled to said additional charge allowance for the said period.
10. In view of the above discussion we, accept the appeals, set aside the impugned orders and direct the official respondents to maintain joint seniority list of Inspectors working in both the zones of multi-zonal stations at Peshawar like that of Karachi and Lahore and thereby the appellants be given consequential benefits of selection grade etc. Moreover, in .Appeal No,36(P) of 1996. The appellant Mr. Rast Baz Khan is also entitled to the additional charge allowance for nine months as indicated above.
11 . No order as to costs. Parties are informed.