ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN -- Appellant Muhammad Rafique Siddiqui was initially appointed as Assistant Master in the Education Department in the year, 1957. He from time to time was promoted and lastly in the year, 1990 he was promoted as Deputy Director in BPS-18 on regular basis. In the year, 1996 the appellant's case alongwith others was placed before Provincial Selection Board for promotion to BPS-19. However, the case of the appellant was deferred on account of pendency of Anti-Corruption Enquiry. His junior Mr. Afsar Ali the respondent No. 3 was, however, promoted to BPS-19. In the year, 1999 the appellants case was once again place before the said Provincial Selection Board where he was cleared and such notification dated 5.7.1999 was issued by the Chief Secretary, Sindh. Since the appellant was deprived from the benefit of inter se seniority, he filed appeal before the respondent No. 1, which was rejected and such order was communicated to the appellant on 15.6.2000. Feeling aggrieved with such rejection order the appellant preferred the instant appeal before this Tribunal on 13.7.2000.
2. The respondent No. 2 filed written statement which was also adopted by respondent No. 1. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 assigned only one reason for depriving the appellant from the benefit/protection of inter se seniority because the appellant stands retired from Government Service. The private respondent No. 3 chose to remain absent presumably for the reason that he has also been retired from service and the outcome of the instant appeal in no way affect him.
3. We have heard appellant in person and Mr. Muhammad Qasim Mirjat, AAG on behalf of the official respondents.
4. The appellant during the course of arguments invited our attention to one Notification dated 12.11.1998 of the Chief Secretary, Sindh, whereby one Mr. Karim Bux Khuro, retired Director Schools was given the same benefit after retirement as has been claimed by the appellant.
5. The learned AAG has submitted that since the appellant stands retired from Government Service as such he was not entitled for the benefit of inter se seniority and his departmental appeal was rightly rejected. He, however, could not challenge the authenticity, correctness and legality of the Notification dated 12.11.1998 supra.
6. We have anxiously considered the above submissions and have gone through the case file and the documents placed on the record.
7. Admittedly, the appellant was senior to Mr. Afsar All (respondent No. 3) and their case was placed before the Provincial Selection Board in its meeting in the year, 1996. The said Selection Board cleared the case of respondent No. 3 but deferred the case of the appellant because at that time the appellant was facing one Anti-Corruption Enquiry. Subsequently, the said enquiry was dropped and the appellant was cleared from the allegations levelled - against him. Appellant's case was once again placed before the said Selection Board in the year, 1999 where he was cleared and in pursuance thereof Notification dated 5.7.1999 was issued. The appellant then claimed inter se seniority in view of Rule 13 of Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, which for the sake of convenience i reproduced as under:- "13. A Civil Servant who is not promoted on his turn for any reason other than of his unfitness for promotion shall on subsequent promotion be deemed to have been promoted in the same batch as his juniors." t is no body's case that appellant was not promoted on account f being unfit for promotion. His case was simply deferred for simple reason that he was facing an Anti-Corruption Enquiry from hick the appellant was subsequently cleared being innocent. As stated above the appellant was then promoted to BPS-19 in the ear, 1999 after being cleared by the Selection Board. In such a circumstances the appellant is legally and lawfully entitled to the benefit as provided in Rule 13 supra, which benefit was denied to he appellant because he stands retired from Government service. he plea taken by the official respondents is a surprising one. On he one hand the benefit of Rule 13 supra was extended to one r. Karim Bux Khuro after his retirement but on the other hand the benefit of same was denied to the appellant. It is a clear case of Approbate and Reprobate.
8. We in the circumstances of the instant case are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Rule 13 supra even after his retirement and accordingly the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to issue necessary Notification in the like manner as has been issued in the case of Mr. Karim Bux Khuro, retired Director Secondary Education, Larkana on 12.11.1998. The appeal stands allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Above are the reasons of our short order dated 25.9.2001 whereby the appeal was allowed as prayed.
Given under our hands and the Seal of this Tribunal this 4th day of October, 2001.