' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 27-6-1997 passed in Service Appeal ,No, 65(R) of 1997 by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
2. The background as depicted in the impugned judgment by the Tribunal is contained in para. 5 thereof which reads thus: ' The appellant joined as XEN (BPS-17) on 1-4-1973 and prior thereto he was an Overseer (BPS-11) since 4-11-1972. However, the appointment as XEN was not a regular one and he had to appear before the Federal Public Service Commission and his regularisation was notified on 23-4-1981 by the President of Pakistan under section 23 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The date of regularisation was mentioned as 1-1-1974 and the appellant claimed that he should be regularised with effect from 1-4-1973, so he filed the departmental representation on 20-2-1982 and thereafter filed a writ petition in 1985 to get the said departmental representation decided. The Establishment Division vide a letter dated 1-2-1987 committed that work-charged service becomes regular when followed by a regularisation and that the present appellant was appointed on 1-1-1974, although on work- charged basis, therefore, he should be treated as senior to one Mr. Muhammad Nabi, a respondent in the said writ petition. It was further clarified that both the said officers, who were deemed to have been promoted on the same day, their inter se seniority should be determined on the basis of their seniority in the lower grade and thus the Establishment Division observed that Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs (KANA) Division should issue a Seniority List accordingly. On the basis of this clarification by the Establishment Division the Constitutional petition appears to have been disposed of. However, KANA Division, did not issue a Seniority List. The appellant was thereafter promoted to BPS-18 vide order dated 31-5-1990. It may be mentioned here that the private respondents had already been promoted to BPS-18 since 1984 and their promotion to BPS-18 has not been challenged. A representation was, however, made on 20-1-1993 asking for the revision of Seniority List of Engineers in BPS-18 and another appeal was filed on 28-12-1993, addressed to respondent No,
1. On his failure to get a response the earlier Appeal No, 211(R) of 1995 was filed, as stated hereinbefore. Consequently the Seniority List has been issued which has been challenged by this appeal primarily with two objections that final list be issued and an order of injunction be passed so that promotion to the higher post may not be made. The respondents have contested the case and written objections have been filed. We have listened to the arguments and scrutinised the record."
3. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that his date of appointment in BS-17 should be considered as 1-4-1973 instead of 1-1-1974 as treated by the Departmental Authorities and affirmed by the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide Notification dated 23rd December, 1981 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence (Defence Division), Karachi, the competent Authority approved regularisation of appointment of the petitioner and the private respondents as Assistant Executive Engineers/Assistant Engineers from the date mentioned against their names. The date from which the petitioner was to be regularised in Grade-17 was stated as 1-1-1974 against Serial No,26 of the Notification. The date of regularisation of Muhammad Ghazi Khan respondent is with effect from 18-9-1973 vide Serial No, 9, Ali Aman Shah respondent with effect from 29-9-1973 vide Serial No,10, Attiqullah respondent with effect from 1-10-1973 vide Serial No, 12 and Munir Hussain respondent with effect from 1-10-1973, vide Serial No,11. He has further submitted that as he was dissatisfied with the date of regularisation as above, the petitioner moved a representation dated 20-2-1982 that as he had been initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on 1-4-1973, his seniority may be reckoned from the said date. The petitioner also filed writ petition before the High Court seeking direction for disposal of this representation and ultimately preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the Seniority List circulated on 4-6-1996 which was preceded by a representation on 16-6-1996. The plea raised before the Tribunal was that the final revised Seniority List of the officers in BPS-18 may be issued and that the respondents' Department be restrained from processing the case of the private respondents to the posts in BPS-19 on the basis of the said Seniority List. The Tribunal, after thorough scrutiny of the material before it, dismissed the appeal vide the impugned judgment. It would be advantageous to refer to the following observations in para. 6 of the impugned judgment which reads thus: "6. The entire arguments of the appellant are directed with regard to the date from which the seniority in BPS-17 is to be reckoned. He alleges that his seniority may be calculated with effect from 1-4-1973 and not from 1-1-1974. During the present as well as the previous round, the entire case of the appellant was built up on the said date read with the observations of the Establishment Division dated 1-2-1987 that the work-charged employment followed by regularisation was to be treated as regular employment and thus the appellant intends to prove that he joined the service earlier than the private respondents and, therefore, he was entitled to reckon his seniority from the said date and be treated as senior to the private respondents
5. Mr. M.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Pakistan v. Sheikh Abdul Hamid (PLD 1961 SC 105), Muhammad Ibrahim Munshey and others v. Province of West Pakistan through Chief Secretary and others (PLD 1968 SC 1), Federation of Pakistan v. Azam Ali and others (1985 SCM R 386) and Sultan Mahmood, Excise and Taxation Inspector, Peshawar and others v.
Government of West Pakistan and 2 others (PLD 1964 SC 302) to contend that the seniority , dispute raised herein ought to have been resolved according to justice and equity and he should not have been treated less favourably than the private respondents and that the Government can, within its plenary powers, make adjustments of compensatory nature favouring the respondents. He further contended that the mere fact that the private respondents were promoted earlier, could hardly be a sufficient ground for rendering injustice to be perpetuated and that in the instant case injustice had in fact been done to the petitioner and it is therefore uncalled for just to deprive him of his rights to further promotion in BPS-19. The precise submission was that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Departmental Authorities made an initial mistake, either deliberately or through oversight, by mentioning the initial date of the petitioner's regular appointment in BS-17 as 1-1-1974 as against 1-4-1973 and that the mistake ought to have been rectified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Nabi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and 7 others (C.P.
No,342-R of 1989) decided on 12-2-1990. In the above case the question for consideration was whether seniority can be assigned to the incumbent of a post from the date of his work-charge appointment or from the date of ad hoc appointment. In the aforesaid case, it was contended that the seniority had to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment and on the approval of the Public Service Commission with the result that the service rendered on work-charge basis had no relevance to claim the seniority. This Court, upholding the judgment of the Tribunal, observed: "We find it a quite equitable order as the respondents were appointed Assistant Engineers earlier to the petitioner and they have rightly been allowed the seniority over the petitioner."
7. Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents submitted that the petitioner and the private respondents belonged to two different disciplines, inasmuch, as the petitioner is in the Mechanical side whereas the private respondents are in the Civil Engineering discipline. According to him, the respondents were promoted in their discipline earlier than the petitioner. He supported the impugned judgment in which it was duly noticed that his clients were promoted to BPS-18 since 1984 and the petitioner was promoted to BPS-18 in the year 1990 and that the Service Tribunal duly took notice. Of the dates of the respective appointments of the private respondents to come to the correct conclusion that in the absence of making a challenge to the promotion of the respondents within time, the result of the petitioner's appeal had to be what it is. Replying to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner he sought support from the case of Fida Hussain v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others (1996 SCM R 303) wherein it was held that a civil servant being work-charged employee prior to 15-4-1974 was not a civil servant in terms of section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 with the result that he could not count the 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.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perusing the material available on the record, we are inclined to hold that the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on cogent reasons. The petitioner was himself to blame for not taking appropriate action against the seniority position of the private respondents ever since the year 1984. The silence on the part of the petitioner to make such a move, goes a long way in protecting the interests of the private respondents. None of the cases cited on behalf of the petitioner advances his case any further. In the case of Abdul Hameed (supra) the appellant therein was not found lacking any diligence in making representation between 1949 and 1957 and it was in this context that the observations therein were made to compensate the contestants against him in the precedent case. Here, the Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner having joined the service as work-charged employee in 1973, his such services were regularised in 1981 from an earlier date i.e, 1-1-1974, he should have challenged the date of regularisation before the appropriate forum within the stipulated period but he failed to do so. Moreover, the regularisation was made effective, in case of the petitioner, from 1-4-1973 by the President in exercise of the powers under section 23 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 which could not be undone by any subordinate agency.
8-A. The Tribunal was also right in holding that the grievance of the petitioner related to the order dated 23-4-1981 against which he filed a representation after a lapse of ten months on 20-2-1982.
Thus, visualised, the representation was clearly belated and on this ground alone the appeal was rightly dismissed.
9. No question of law of public importance has been raised in this case to warrant interference.
10. Resultantly, we would dismiss this petition and decline leave.