JUDGMENT ABDUL NAFEEZ CI1EEMA, CHAIRMAN - The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant w;as appointed as Traffic Sergeant (Inspector), on 18.6.1984. He was later confirmed as such on 6.7.1991 with effect from 1.7.1987, against one of the 57. Permanent posts (Annexure-B to the Memo, of Appeal) invoking rule 12.8 of the Punjab Police Rules. 1934 and seniority was fixed as per rule 12.2 of the same Rules. Claiming that the appellant was entitled to be confirmed as Inspector from the date of his appointment 11.7.1984) with consequential benefits, the appellant filed a representation before respondent No. 1 which was, however, dismissed by the impugned orders dated 22.6.2000.
2. The case of the appellant is that lie was entitled to be confirmed as Inspector with effect from the date of his appointment, namely, 1.7.1984 under rule 12.8 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and that his representation was wrongly rejected by respondent No. 1 ignoring the law laid down in a number of judgments of this very Tribunal Which were upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
In para 6 of Memo, of appeal, it. Was averred that respondent No. 3 was at serial Nu. 36 of the seniority list whereas the appellant was at serial No. 7.. However, respondent No. 3 was promoted out of turn impairing the vested right of the appellant.
3. On admittance of the appeal, notices were issued to the respondents for filing written objections.
By order dated 8.9.2000. Respondent No. 3 was proceeded against ex-parte as nobody had appeared on his behalf despite due service. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had filed their comments/objections on 17.10.2000. They contested the appeal contending that the appellant was appointed against a temporary post on 1.7.1984 and ' on the completion of probationary period of three years as envisaged under rule 12.8 of the Punjab Police Rules. 1934, he was confirmed along with his batchmates i.e.f. 1.7.1987 when the posts were made permanent by the Government and that no junior to the appellant having been confirmed earlier,-lie had no legitimate grievance.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. In para 2 of the comments submitted by the contesting respondents Nos. I and 2, it was stated that 21 posts of Sergeants (Traffic Inspectors) were created by the Government of the Punjab notification dated 29.3.198,3: that 11 more posts of Inspectors were created i.e.f. 11.2.1984 on purely temporary basis and that 32 Inspectors including the appellant were recruited against these posts.
It was further noted in the same para that 57 . Posts-'.Created from time to time were made "permanent i.e.f. 1.7.1987 by 'the Government of' the Punjab vide notification dated 22. 12.1986. This Therefore, evident from the comments/objections filed by respondents' Now I and 2 that the post against which the appellant was appointed continued without limit of time. The expression "permanent post" as defined in Section 2(1 )(f) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1'974 means "a post sanctioned without limit of time.
6. As per rule 12.8 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, "Inspectors, Sergeants, sub-inspectors, and Assistant sub-inspectors who are directly appointed will be considered to be bn probation for three years, and their security is to he fixed as provided under rule 12.2(3) which may be powerlifting facility, of reference:- "(3) Ail. Appointments of enrolled police officers are on probation according to the rules in this chapter applicable to each rank:- Seniority in the ease of upper subordinates, will be reckoned in the first instance from the date of first appointment, officers promoted from a lower rank being considered senior to persons appointed direct on same date and the seniority of the officers appointed direct on the same date being reckoned according to age. Seniority shall, however, be settled by dates of confirmation, the seniority inter se of several officers confirmed .On the same date being that allotted to them on first appointment: Provided that an officer whose promotion or confirmation is delayed by reason of his being on deputation outside his range or district shall on being promoted or confirmed, regain the seniority which he originally held vis-a-vis any officer promoted or confirmed before him during his deputation."
7. The appellant was recruited as direct Inspector. His seniority and the probationary period of three years were to be regulated respectively under rules 12.2 and 12.8 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 13.8 of the same Rules deals with confirmation of promoters. 19.71 PLC (CS) 47 CST) is the ruling where the provisions of rule 12.2(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 were interpreted and it was held that upper subordinates' i.e. "Inspectors/Sergeants, Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors who are directly appointed", would be confirmed from the date of their appointment if. Of course, probation period of three years is completed successfully as is required under rule .12.8 of the said Rules. In .
The same ruling, it was further held:- "There is nothing in the language of rule 12.2(3) Punjab Police Rules which supports the contention that the date of confirmation must necessarily be different from the date of appointment. There is no obstacle in the way of confirmation being ordered from the date of appointment which is the usual practice, or even from an earlier date, in very exceptional cases."
The above Full Bench ruling of this Tribunal is being consistently followed.
8. No doubt in the judgment relied upon by the department (Appeal No. 29\/95-Nazir Hussain Shah Kv. IGP), confirmation was directed to be made with effect from the date when probation period was completed However, the following observations made in the same judgment are significant:- "If he does not suffer from any disability during the probation period of three years, he is to be confirmed as A.S.I, on completion of the period of probation. There is nothing in this rule to authorize the department to extend the period of probation. An officer under probation, has either to be discharged from service within the period of probation or confirmed on completion of the said period. There is absolutely no legal basis for confirming the appellant as A.S.I, i.e.f. 17.8.1977 i.e. After about two years of the completion of the probationary period. The fact that A.S.Is., who were senior to the appellant were also confirmed on 17.8.1977, does not furnish any legal justification for postponing the confirmation of the appellant for a period of about two years. This unjustified delay in the confirmation of the appellant as A;S.I., also resulted in the delay in his admission to promotion list-E."
9. Be that as it may, the Punjab Service Tribunal while deciding Appeal N. 3214 of 1997 vide judgment dated 22.1.1998 had held:- "As for the date of confirmation, there is no rule laying down that date of confirmation would be a date different from the date of appointment;, the appellant was never reverted from the rank of Inspector. He is not asking for confirmation from. a date earlier than the date of appointment." and the judgment was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1999 SCM R 1594 in the following words:- "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are inclined to hold that the Tribunal was right in granting relief prayed for by the respondent on the principle of consistency. The impugned judgment does not suffer from a taint in law -, Resultantly, the petition is dismissed on merits as well as on ground of limitation."
Consequently the judgment relied upon by the department (Appeal No. 291/95) referred to above would go in eclipse.
10. The record of the appellant is throughout commendable. The plea of the contesting respondents that as no junior to the appellant was confirmed earlier to him, he could not claim confirmation from the date of appointment, has no force. The reason is that right of confirmation and seniority would vest in him under rules 12.2(3), 12.8 and 12.25(5) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 irrespective of the fact whether any of his juniors has been or has not been confirmed from a particular date. Equally, there was no force in the contention of the respondents that as the appellant was appointed on temporary basis, he could not have been confirmed from the date of his appointment. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed in the prescribed manner and as per para 2 of the comments, his period of probation was counted from the date of appointment under the directions of the Honourable High -Court in Writ Petition No. 6923/89. It was also stated in the same para of the-comments that "57 posts of Inspectors' Sergeants created from time to time were made permanent by the Government of the Punjab vide their Notification. No. 2-2/HP/II/85.
Dated 22.12.1986". The appellant was duly appointed in a prescribed manner against a post which was sanctioned without any limit of time. In other words, the post remained continuous and was ultimately made permanent. In 1998 SCM R 215, it was- held that "there is no concept of appointment on "purely temporary basis in the entire gamut of service laws".
11. As earlier noticed, the period of probation was counted by the respondent from the date of appointment under the directions of the Honourable High Court in Writ Petition No. 6923/89. There was absolutely no gap between the date of creation of the post and the date of its permanency.
The request of the appellant for confirmation as Inspector from the date of his appointment was.
Therefore, amply justified and fell within the parameters of rules 12.2.(3). 12.8 and 19.25(5) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
12. As a sequel of the above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned orders dated 6.7.1991 and 22.6.2000 passed by the contesting respondents are set aside and the appellant is held entitled to be' confirmed as Inspector/Sergeant from the date of his appointment (1.7.1984) with all consequential relief including promotion as D.S.P. I here shall be no order as to costs.