' Muhammad Hasnain Shah, Inspector, was appointed as A.S.-I. On 6-3-1982 and was confirmed in the said post on 12-8-1986 on which date he was also admitted to list 'E'. On 8-10-1986, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, terminated the probation of the appellant as A.S.-I. And also removed him from list 'E'. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, took suo motu notice of the steps taken by Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad, and directed maintaining status quo ante, with the result that appellant was confirmed as A.S.-I. w,e,f, 2-8-1986 as well as admitted to list 'E' and was also promoted the rank of officiating Sub-Inspector w,e,f, 8-8- 1988. Simultaneously, appellant was transferred to Multan Range in the year 1988. A seniority list was issued in which appellant was shown at serial No,143-A followed by another seniority list of Sub-Inspectors w,e,f, 1-1-1987 in which the name of the appellant did not figure, however, respondents Nos.4 to 9 were shown senior to the appellant having been admitted to list 'E' w,e,f, 9- 9-1986, on a date after the admission of the appellant to the said list, as a result of which respondents Nos.4 to 9 were confirmed as Sub-Inspectors w,e,f, 7-2-1990 vide order dated 17-2- 1990 passed by Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan. Appellant made representation to respondent No,1 on 15-1-1998. In reply respondent No,1 vide his letter dated 25-2- 1998 informed the appellant that his case was examined for grant of ante-date confirmation as Sub-Inspector w,e,f, 7-2-1990 but the same could not be accorded as he was undergoing upper class course which was a pre-requisite qualification for confirmation as Sub-Inspector. Appellant mentioned in his appeal that respondents Nos.4 to 9 have been deputed for upper class course in March 1989 whereas appellant was sent to upper class course on 23-9-1989 and completed the course in March, 1990, while he was serving in Multan Range. Grievance of the appellant was that confirmation of respondents No,4 to 9 as Sub-Inspectors w,e,f, 7-2-1990, while he was left in lurch, the respondents were admitted to list 'F' and promoted as officiating Inspectors from various dates occurring in the years 1991 and 1995. Appellant admitted that he was transferred to Sargodha Range at his own request vide order dated 27-1-1991, he was placed at the bottom of officiating Sub-Inspectors on the list of Sargodha Range. Being junior to all officiating Sub-Inspectors in Sargodha Range, he was confirmed as Sub-Inspector w,e,f, 12-8-1992 and in the seniority list of confirmed Sub-Inspectors of Sargodha Range, his name figured at Serial No,60, though he was entitled to be placed below Serial No,24 and above Serial No,25 as these persons were confirmed from various dates ranging between 9-10-1990 to 12-8-1992. Appellant was admitted to list 'F' on 27-3-1999 and promoted as Inspector w,e,f, 19-4-1999 making him junior to respondents Nos.4 to 11 by 8 years. Appellant submitted his representation to respondent No,2 on 19-3-1998, which was rejected and communicated to him on 25-11-2000. Order of respondent' No,1 dated 25-2-1998 and that of respondent No,2 dated 25-11-2000 have been challenged in this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the injustice to the appellant commenced at the time when he was not considered alongwith his batchmates to undergo upper class course to which they were admitted in March, 1989 and this is the starting point of his miseries. Taking his arguments to their logical conclusion, learned counsel stated that the only ground for not sending the Police Officer for upper course is that when he has an adverse entry in his ACR, as mandated in the Police Rules, 1934. To the contrary, it was urged that appellant has in his whole career not earned even a single adverse entry, particularly, till March, 1989, when respondents Nos.4 to 11 were sent to undergo the upper class course and without any rhyme or reason, his entry in the institution to undergo upper class course was delayed till 23-8-1989, which he passed in March, 1990.
3.Learned counsel for the appellant referred to an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Petitions Nos.766-L of 1995 and 790-L of 1995 which took into consideration identical question of law. Respondent and petitioner, in the referred to case, before the apex Court were Junior Instructors in Government College of Technology. Respondent being senior to the petitioner was not promoted to take the training course because the Principal was of the view that his class would be neglected without him. But on the other hand petitioner was allowed to proceed on training which made him qualified to be promoted in BS-17 on 18-6-1990. However, the case of the respondent was relegated on the ground that he did not complete the training which he did subsequently and obtained Diploma on 13-5-1991. Respondent claimed promotion and seniority asserting that if he had not been ignored earlier, without any fault of his, he would have also been promoted alongwith the petitioner. Punjab Service Tribunal who allowed the petition, observed as under:- "There was no denying the fact that the appellant was senior to respondent No,3. He should have been deputed for the course by virtue of his seniority. It was not the respondent's case that his record was otherwise unsatisfactory rendering him unit for getting the training. Conversely, when his record was clean and he was senior as well, he should have been given preference to all others for getting the training. He was detained by the Principal as he had none also to look after the relevant duties but this could not be a reason to traverse seniority of the appellant. Someone should have been brought in by transfer or by initial recruitment to fill the post temporarily. The reason for rendering his seniority ineffective was not sound. Late, however, he got the training and came eligible to be promoted. By virtue of seniority which was a --sted right he had a genuine claim to be preferred to respondent No,3.
' Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is held entitled to be promoted as Inspector (BS- 17) in preference to respondent No,3 even though the latter might have to be demoted."
' Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court held that the respondent was handicapped to undergo the course/training because of refusal of the Principal to allow him to proceed on such training but since he was entitled to undergo the training alongwith others, the. Principal should have exercised the discretion in his favour and alternate arrangement should have been made. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and judgment of the Tribunal was upheld.
4. Another hurdle which has been created in the way of the appellant is that he got himself transferred to Sargodha and according to the policy of the Government, transfer with consent brings his seniority in his rank to the bottom. However, the mischief to the appellant was done before he opted for transfer to Sargodha in January, 1991 and events culminating in ignoring him for promotion as confirmed Sub-Inspector from 7-2-1990 would not stand in his way for seeking relief by his voluntary transfer to Sargodha Range. Appellant also quoted the case of Muhammad Sarwar. v. Director Administration, FIA reported in 1998 SCM R 2409 a case more or less on the similar grounds. Learned District Attorney, raised a single objection about limitation and submitted that wrong was done to the appellant on 7-2-1990 according to his own showing but the representation which he made was in January, 1998 and according to the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1998 SCM R 882, question of limitation could be seen by the appellate Court at any stage of the proceedings. It was urged that although appellant may have a good case on merit but having kept mum for 7/8 years, he cannot be allowed condonation there being no sufficient ground in his favour.
5. I have attended to the arguments of the respective counsels and have also gone through the record.
6. Appellant admittedly was punished for no fault of his for not being nominated for upper class course in March, 1989 alongwith other respondents. He had no adverse entry in his ACR standing against him name at that period of time. Ruling of the Hon'ble apex Court upholding the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No, 634 of 1991 clinches the issue. Subsequent event of getting himself transferred to Sargodha and being placed at the bottom of officiating Sub-Inspectors list, would not stand in the way of the appellant as the mischief had completed itself in February, 1990 when juniors to the appellant were confirmed as Sub-Inspectors.
7. Coming to the question of limitation, canvassed by the appellant, I am more prone in the instant case to do substantial justice, as head of the appellant was placed on the chopping block for no fault of his. Undoubtedly, Limitation Act is penal in nature and rights accrued cannot be taken away unless sufficient cause is shown. However, technicalities of law should not stand in the way of a person who has been singled out rather persecuted without knowing as to what crime or sin he has committed. Equities in his favour, far out weight, his tardiness, to make representation against the injustice done to him. I am also fortified in my view by the judgment of the apex Court reported in PLD 1992 SC 825 that in matters of promotion, pay and other emoluments cause of action is recurring, limitation does not forecolses the right. Resultantly I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct the respondents to confirm the appellant as Sub-Inspector w,e,f, 7-2- 1990 when respondents; 14 to 11 his juniors were given the benefit of confirmation as Sub-Inspector.
Respondent No,2 may consider granting ante-dated promotion to the appellant as officiating Inspector from the same dates as were allowed to the respondents alongwith consequential benefits flowing from the order to promotion. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.