' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---The above appeal by leave of this Court arises out of judgment, dated 7-5-1995 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, appellants in Appeal No,388-R of 1994 alongside Appeal No,391-R of 1994 brought by one Faisal Baig in the background that the appellant felt aggrieved of the seniority list of Assistant Works Managers/Engineers (B-17) circulated by POFs' Board order, dated 27-2-1994 whereby he was shown junior to respondent No,3-Capt (Retd.) Muhammad Tariq Shouq. The appellant filed departmental representation on 27-3-1994 to the Chief Administrative Officer, P.O.Fs'. Board, Wah Cantt. His representation was dismissed on 6-6-1994 and he further impugned the said order before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 through Appeal No,388(R) of 1994 on 28-8-1994. It appears that the Tribunal did notice that the appeal of respondent No,3 before it was barred by time and that the reasons mentioned by him in the application seeking condonation of delay were an afterthought but, taking a lenient view, the merits of the case were looked into as below:-- ' find form the record that respondent No,3 namely Capt. (Retd.) Muhammad Tariq Shauq, consequent upon receipt of compulsory call up Notice No,EP/9/82-234, dated 1-2-1982 under compulsory service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971, joined Army service and remained there w,e,f, 6-3-1982 to 12-12-1984. After completion of 2-1/2 years' compulsory service in Pakistan Army, he was again appointed on contract in the POFs w,e,f, 29-4-1985 and was regularized with effect from 1-7-1987 vide order, dated 18-7-1987. In term of section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971, he was entitled to count his period of compulsory service rendered by him in Pakistan Army from 6-3-1982 to 12-12-1984 towards seniority and pay etc. As such the Establishment Division has allowed him to count the period of compulsory service rendered by him in the Pakistan Army and also the benefit of pay fixation vide O.M. Dated 19-2-1994. The appellants have failed to give their dates of appointment in POFs, however, from perusal of the seniority list, we found that respondent No,3 was appointed firstly as AWM w,e,f, 7-12-1981, which is admitted by the appellants. Thus, it is established that respondent No,3 was appointed earlier than the appellants.
In our view if he had not gone on compulsory service to Pakistan Army, he would have definitely been senior to the appellants. Respondent No,3 did not join Army service at his own but he was called upon to compulsorily serve Armed Forces. If he was not so called, he might have remained in POF service continuously and gain seniority overall those who joined later in POF. Thus, it will be unjust and unfair as those who are not called to service, may enter into service direct and get seniority over those who might have otherwise been senior, if not called in public interest.
Consequently, we are of the view that the respondent No,3 has rightly (been) given his right to count his army service towards his seniority and he was rightly given seniority as admissible under the rules on account of compulsory army service.
"(4) In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in both the appeals, which are dismissed accordingly. No order for costs."
2. Second and third paragraphs of leave granting order dated 30-1-1996, read thus:-- "The dispute before the learned Tribunal in the service appeal related to seniority between the petitioner (in Civil Petition No,370 of 1995) and respondent No,3. The learned Tribunal held that in view of section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971, respondent No,3 was entitled to count the period from 6-3-1982 to 12-12-1984 when he was called for compulsory service of army towards his seniority in service in P.O.F. The learned Tribunal, accordingly held that departmental authority rightly treated respondent No,3 as senior to the petitioner.
"In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that section 9-A (ibid) which was added subsequently, applied only to the employment under the Federal and Provincial Government in Pakistan. This section did not apply to the service under P.O.F. Which was neither a service under the Federal Government nor Provincial Government. The contention raised by the learned counsel requires examination and we, accordingly grant leave to appeal to consider the same."
3. Hence this appeal.
4. Mr. Riazul Haq Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this appeal reiterated his plea noticed in the leave granting order to the effect that section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971 (No,XXXI of 1971), applies only to the employment under the Federal and Provincial Governments and that this section does not apply to the service under P.O.F, which was neither a service under the Federal Government nor Provincial Government. He referred to respondent No,3 Muhammad Tariq Shouq's application dated nil addressed to the Chairman P.O.Fs. Board on the subject "Regularization of Seniority." requesting for reckoning his service in Pakistan Army (for 2-1/2 years) towards service and seniority in P.O.Fs.
Under section 9-A (ibid) as also to reply thereto under the signatures of Firdous Zohra Zaidi, AWM/Admin-I for Chief Administrative Officer thereof P.O.F Board of-I/13 on 'Subject': "Regularization of Seniority-Capt. (Retd) Muhammad Tariq Shouq. AWM/SAA (Now POF SJL) PL.No,98372) dated 20- 10-1986, para.2 whereof reads thus:-- "As the officer is still on contract and the contractual service is not qualifying service for pension, his service rendered in the Pakistan Army under the Ordinance, it is regretted cannot be counted towards pension, at this stage." ' to contend that appellant's service on contract was rightly not counted towards service and seniority in POFs. He also referred to (i) Black's Law Dictionary 1968-St. Paul, Mini West Publishing Co.
Revised Fourth Edition by the Publisher's Editorial Staff, and (ii) The Oxford English Dictionary Volume VIII Poy-Ry to contend that word 'Reinstate' means (i) "To reinstall; re-establish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed" and (ii) "To reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing) in a place, station, condition, etc.". According to him, as the 'former position' of respondent-Muhammad Tariq Shouq was 'contract service' the same cannot be counted towards his seniority in service in P.O.Fs.
5. Contrarily, Mr. Muhammad Younas Chaudhry, Manager (Legal) P.O.Fs. And Mt. Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan as also respondent No,3 Muhammad Tariq Shouq were one on the point that as the Ordnance Factories fall within the Administrative Control of Defence Production Division under the Rules of Business, 1973 and as the same is a Department of the Federal Government, the services of persons similarly placed as respondent Muhammad Tariq Shouq clearly fall within the ambit of section 9-A of 1971 Ordinance. They specifically relied upon the parawise comments submitted on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal to the effect that period of 2 years, 9 months and 6 days served by respondent No,3 in Pak Army was rightly counted towards his seniority. Respondent No,3 Muhammad Tariq Shouq also pressed into service the contents of the said parawise comments of Respondents Nos.1 and 2 against Ground-C of the Memo. Of Appeal before the Tribunal as also the "Prayer" clause therein, which read as below:-- "(c) In pursuance of the Ordinance quoted above and with the approval of Establishment Division (Annexure-E) respondent No,3 has been allowed to count the period of compulsory service rendered by him in Pakistan Army from 6-3-1982 to 12-12-1984 towards seniority from the date of his fresh and regular appointment in P.O.Fs. i,e, 1-7-1987. After prefixing the above period he reckons his seniority w,e,f, 25-9-1984. Therefore, no illegality has occurred in this case. With a view to give better understanding as to how seniority of appellant was determined, schedule with duration and dates is given hereunder:-- {{TABLE}} "APPOINTMENT DATE REMARKS Ist appointment on contract as AWM in P.O.Fs. D M Y Service being contractual has not 7 12 81 been counted towards seniority.
"Served in Pak Army 12 12 84 Period Served in Pak Army.
6 3 82 6 9 02 "After release from Pak Army joined P.O.Fs. On contract basis as AWM. 29 4 83 Service being contractual has not been counted towards seniority.
"Regular appointment 1 7 87 "Period served in Pak 6 9 02 Army which was counted towards seniority. 25 9 84 "Date of Seniority. 25th Sept.
1984."
"Prayer {{TABLE}} ' The seniority of respondent No,3 has been fixed correctly in accordance with the Ordinance after consulting the Establishment Division. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that appeal may be dismissed with costs."
6. We have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar on behalf of the parties and perused the material with the help of their learned counsel.
7. Last paragraph of leave granting order in this case talks of leave having been granted only to examine the contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant-Muhammad Saeed Saddozai "...That section 9-A (ibid), which was added subsequently, applied only to the employment under the Federal and Provincial Governments in Pakistan. This section did not apply to the service under P.O.F. Which was neither a service under the Federal Government nor Provincial Government."
(Underlining is for emphasis). The explanations furnished by the learned Law Officer and the Manager (Legal) P.O.Fs. Wah Cantt., to the effect that, under the Rules of Business, 1973 'Ordnance Factories' fall within the Administrative Control of Defence Production Division and as the same is a Department of the Federal Government there the provisions of section 9-A (ibid) are applicable to the case of respondent No,3 Muhammad Tariq Shouq, have not been controverted by Mr. Sheikh, at all.
8. As regards the plea of Mr. Raizul Haq Sheikh that respondent Muhammad Tariq Shouq was correctly informed by P.O.F. On 20-10-1986 that: "As the officer is still on contract and the contractual service is not qualifying service for pension, his service rendered in the Pakistan Army under the Ordinance, it is regretted cannot be counted towards pension, at this stage." we suffice by observing that the case of respondents Chairman P.O.F. Wah Cantt., and Secretary Establishing Division, Government of Pakistan before the Tribunal was that respondent Muhammad Tariq Shouq was entitled to the benefit of his service of 2-1/2 years with the Pakistan Army and that the periods of his contractual service as AWM in P.O.Fs. Have not been counted towards seniority. It is not the case of the appellant that the calculation of the period spent by respondent Muhammad Tariq Shouq in Pakistan Army from "6-3-1982 to 12-12-1984" i,e, 2 years, 9 months and 6 days has any nexus with his contractual service as AWM in P.O.Fs. Further, the stand taken by the official- respondents before the Tribunal as well as this Court is that the periods of contractual service of respondent Muhammad Tariq Shouq as AWM with P.O.Fs. Wah Cantt., were not counted while granting the benefit of 2 years, 9 months and 6 days' service with the Pakistan Army. Looked at from this angle, there is no force in the plea taken on behalf of the appellant that in terms of the meaning of the word 'Reinstate' given in Black's Law Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary Volume VIII makes the 'former position' of respondent-Muhammad Tariq Shouq as 'contract service'.
9. Before parting with this order we may observe that the plea raised by Mr. Riazul Haq Sheikh during his arguments on 17-5-2001 to the effect that in this case it is section 9 of 1971 Ordinance which is applicable and that section 9-A (ibid) is not applicable, simply pales out in significance when considered in juxtaposition with the uncontroverted Departmental construction placed by the respondent P.O.Fs. Wah Cantt. As also the respondent Establishment Division (now ex parte) while resolving the cause in favour of respondent Muhammad Tariq Shouq to the effect that: "In pursuance of the Ordinance quoted above and with the approval of Establishment Division (Annexure-E) respondent No,3 has been allowed to count the period of compulsory service rendered by him in Pakistan Army from 6-3-1982 to 12-12-1984 towards seniority from the date of his fresh and regular appointment in P.O.Fs. i,e, 1-7-1987. After prefixing the above period he reckons his seniority w,e,f, 25-9-1984. Therefore, no illegality has occurred in this case. ... " (Underlining is for emphasis).
10. For all that has gone before, we are not inclined to the view that any ground whatsoever has- been made out for interference with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 7-5-1995.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.