' AFTAB AHMED, (MEMBER).1--Khan Bacha, Office Assistant at Tarbela Dam Project is aggrieved by seniority list circulated in April, 2000 wherein his name despite being senior has been shown under respondent No,3 i,e, Khan Muhammad.
2. Arguing his case Sheikh Riaz-ul-Haq, Advocate submitted that the appellant joined Tarbela Project, WAPDA as Junior Clerk in May, 1984 and promoted as Senior Clerk in April, 1993 whereas respondent No,3 (Khan Muhammad) joined the same Project as Junior Clerk in September, 1987 and promoted as Senior Clerk in October, 1994 and as such the appellant was admittedly senior to him both as Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk. In 1996 both the officials were declared surplus. Khan Muhammad respondent No,3 was adjusted in Ghazi Brotha Project vide Office Order dated 4-4- 1996 whereas the appellant who was released by Tarbela Dam Project in December, 1996 was also adjusted in Ghazi Brotha Project vide Office Order dated 3-12-1996. Learned counsel submitted that being senior to respondent No,3 and later having been both declared surplus and joined another project under the same authority in the same capacity/cadre the appellant could not be treated junior to respondent No,3 and as such the seniority list circulated in April, 2000 was against the facts and rules/ regulations.
3. The departmental action was defended by Mr. Sajjad Hussain Cheema, Advocate and Khan Muhammad respondent No,3 in person, submitted that according to Policy of absorption/adjustment of surplus staff, respondent No,3 having joined Ghazi Barotha Project earlier to appellant was to be placed senior to him and that the claim of the appellant was not justified.
4. We have considered the arguments and also seen the Policy letter of WAPDA dated 16-12-1978 on the subject which reads as under:- Subject:- ABSORPTION/ADJUSTMENT OF SURPLUS STAFF.
Reference your U.O. No, 86323/MDP/E-1/10/263, dated 22-1-1978 on the above subject.
2. The position of surplus employees in WAPDA is such that they are considered to have become surplus to the requirement of a specific office and are required to be absorbed in order to provide alternate appointment in their own interest. Therefore, it is not possible to consider them as having been transferred from one cadre to another as the posts from which they are declared surplus are abolished. However, on their absorption in another cadre they are to be placed at the lowest position in the cadre by protection their pay keeping in view this position it was clearly stipulated in this Office Order No, SO(E-1)/07001 /Surplus/Pol icy/5670717 dated 6-8-1978 that the junior most person to be declared surplus."
5. A plain reading of the above WAPDA instructions and general principle of adjustment of the surplus envisages that such staff when adjusted in other institution/department they are to be placed at the bottom of the staff already working in that institution. But the inter se seniority of officials declare surplus in a batch is to remain intact on joining other project in the same cadre. In the present case the appellant and respondent No,3 both were working at Tarbela Dam Project.
Admittedly the appellant was senior to respondent No,3. Both of them were declared surplus but respondent No,3 being junior was relieved earlier to the appellant but on joining of the appellant to Ghazi Barotha Project in the same cadre the appellant was entitled to retain inter se seniority with respondent No,3 though both of them were to be placed at the bottom of the officials in the same cadre Ghazi Barotha Project. The appeal as such succeeds and it is directed that seniority list dated 18-4-2000 shall be amended/corrected placing the appellant over respondent No,3 Khan Muhammad. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.