' MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.---The facts of the case as also the points on which leave was granted by this Court on 8-11-1995 are being reproduced, verbatim, therefrom:- ' The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Service Tribunal, dated 27-2-1995 whereby the Tribunal while disposing of the service appeal of respondent No,1 made the following observation:-- "The appeal is allowed. The appellant is declared to be entitled to be promoted as officiating S.I.
From 4-4-1977 also confirmed as such from the same date; as Inspector from 30-3-1981, and as D.S.P. From 9-9-1987/14-10-1987. These were the dates when his next junior was given those promotions and therefore, that event entitles him to get those very promotions from those very dates."
' The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above observation made by the learned Tribunal while disposing of appeal of respondent No,1 amounts to giving a direction to the department to promote respondent No,1, which was outside the scope of jurisdiction of the Tribunal Act. The contention requires examination and, we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.
2. After going, through the leave granting order and the two authorities of this Court in the cases of Mian Abdul Malik v. Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui and 4 others (1991 SCM R 1129) and Muhammad Anis (PLD 1994 SC 39) we had orally announced the Order whereby the judgment of the Service Tribunal was set aside and the appeal was partly allowed with the observation that the impugned directions issued by the Tribunal for the promotion of respondent No,1 from certain dates to certain posts were violative of the law laid down by this Court. It was further directed that notwithstanding the eligibility of the appellant or the promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector and D.S.P., his fitness may be determined by the competent authorities. During the course of dictating the order in this case we have been able to lay our hands on the case-law enunciated by a Full Bench of this Court in the cases of Muhammad Iqbla Khokhar and 3 others v. The Government of the Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1991 SC 35), wherein comparative study of section 8 of the (Federal) Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973), section 8 of the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act, 1973 (XVIII of 1973), section 8 of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 (XIV of 1973), section 8 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 (IX of 1974) and section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (VIII of 1974), governing seniority of civil servants was undertaken and it was held as under:- "The two features at once emerge from this comparative study of the law governing seniority. The first is that the Punjab Civil Servants Act did not expressly say that seniority shall not be a vested right though all other laws said so expressly. The second is that the power of making rules of seniority subordinated the right of seniority. In the Punjab, there was no such subordination of the right of seniority to the Rules prescribed for determining seniority. The obvious conclusion is that in the Punjab seniority continued to be a vested right of a civil servant, elsewhere it did not. The rules had to recognize it."
' Again in the case of Dr. Sabir Zameer Saiddiqui v. Abdul Malik and 4 others (PLD 1991 SC 226), the law laid down in the case of Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar (supra) was elucidated in the following paragraph of the report:- "However, even for this appeal, the two questions already resolved were, one in Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar and 3 others v. The Government of the Punjab and 2 others (PLD 1991 SC 35) that seniority is a vested right in Punjab and cannot be overridden even by the Governor except in accordance with the law and the other, that allocation, seniority and eligibility by reference to the redesignated groups in the service to which the parties belonged was against the law, are relevant and form the foundation of this judgment too."
5. In this view of the matter we were of the considered view that the oral order announced by us was not in accord with the ratio deducible from the cases of Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar and Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui (supra) which has been reproduced above. We, therefore, directed the office to issue notice to the parties in this case as to why the oral order announced by us on 19-6-1998 should not be recalled and the impugned judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal restored.
6. In response to the notice issued by the Office, unfortunately again neither of the respondents entered appearance. On behalf of the appellants, however, Syed Alamdar Raza, learned Advocate Supreme Court, had assisted us in arriving at the correct conclusion in the matter.
7. Syed Alamdar Raza, learned Advocate Supreme Court, contended that legally the learned Bench of the Service Tribunal did not possess the authority to direct promotion of respondent No,1; that respondent No,1 having acquiesced in the seniority of respondent No,2 was legally estopped to challenge the same before either the departmental authority or before the Service Tribunal.
Reliance in this context was placed on the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. Ahmed Suleman v. Dr. Naeem and 5 others (PLD 1997 SC 382).
8. We regret that we have not been impressed by either of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. We have been at pains to highlight the difference between "Section 8 of the (Federal) Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973), section 8 of the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act, 1973 (XVIII of 1973), section 8 of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 (XIV of 1973), section 8 of Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 (IX of 1974) and section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (VIII of 1974)" in para. 2 ante. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold on the basis of the law laid down in the precedent of Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui (supra) that the Punjab Civil Servants Act does not expressly provide that the seniority of a civil servant shall not be a vested right in contradistinction to all other laws referred to above particularly when in Punjab there was no subordination of the right of seniority to the rules for determining seniority. The obvious conclusion drawn in the authority noticed above is that in Punjab seniority continues to be a vested right of a civil servant notwithstanding the fact that elsewhere it did not. The precedent of Dr. Ahmed Suleman pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellant is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the scope of appeal before the Service Tribunal under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) and under Article 212(3), of the Constitution particularly the appeal under section 4 was held to lie against the final order, whether original or appellate passed by a departmental authority in respect of any terms and conditions of his service including disciplinary matters, within 30 days of the communication of such order. The facts of the case of Dr. Ahmed Suleman are, thus, clearly distinguishable from the facts in the background of the titled appeal.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the I.-G. Police, Punjab against the impugned order of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal. The impugned order proceeds ultimately in accord with the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar and Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui (supra). In consequence the appeal having no merit is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the tribunal is restored. There shall be no orders as to costs.