' JAVED IQBAL, J.---The above captioned petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment dated 17-10-2001 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore whereby the appeals preferred on behalf of petitioners have been rejected regarding their pro forma promotion, which are being disposed of by this common order involving the same questions of law and facts.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the impugned judgment are that "on his joining Police Training College Sihala as an Instructor, departmental authorities granted one Iftikhar Ahmed one step promotion from the rank of Head constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector with the result that he got his service promotions earlier than his batch mates and many of his seniors.
Respondents No,3 to 11, who were senior to Iftikhar Ahmad, aforesaid took advantage of his rapid promotion. Firstly Mr. Iqbal Ahmed respondent No,3 approached the Punjab Service Tribunal and suppressing the fact that Iftikhar Ahmed aforesaid had been allowed accelerated promotion because of his having joined as Education Instructor, claimed promotion on the basis of next below rule. Tribunal accepted his appeal and consequently respondent No,3 was brought at par with Iftikhar Ahmed Inspector by granting him pro forma promotion in all ranks from Assistant Sub- Inspector to Inspector. This encouraged other respondents No,4 to 11 who also claimed the same benefits on the analogy of Iqbal Ahmed respondent No,3 and secured favourable decisions from the Tribunal. Departmental Authorities thereupon brought them at par with Sub-Inspector Iqbal Ahmed respondent No,3 and allowed them pro forma promotion in all ranks. The present appellants claim that since respondent No,3 to 11 are junior to them in respect of confirmation in various ranks, they deserve pro forma promotion to retain their seniority. They made a representation to Inspector-General of Police Punjab for pro forma promotion on the analogy of respondents No,3 to 11 which he rejected." Being aggrieved the petitioners approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, by way of appeals which have been rejected vide judgment impugned.
3. Malik Amjad Pervaiz, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioners and contended vehemently that all the appeals filed before the Service Tribunal could not have been clubbed together which resulted into serious miscarriage of justice as factual and legal aspects involving in each appeal could not be appreciated diligently. It is contended that factual similarity was lacking to get all the appeals disposed of simultaneously by a common judgment and on this score alone judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the learned Service Tribunal has dismissed the appeals on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties which could not have been done as initially the pro forma promotion was claimed against the respondents which were admittedly junior to the petitioners and therefore the appeal before the Service Tribunal was proper. It is next contended that the impugned judgment is in conflict with the earlier judgments of the Service Tribunal dated 12-7-1993 and 6-3-1995 passed identical case and on this score alone the petition may he converted into appeal by setting aside the judgment impugned.
4. Miss Yasmin Sehgal, learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab alongwith Mr. A. H. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. M. Saleem Sikandar, Assistant Inspector-General of Police is present and controverted the view-point as canvassed by learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners and supported the judgment impugned by reiterating the reasons contained therein and submitted further that the petitioners should have assailed judgments of learned Service Tribunal dated 12-7-1993 and 6-3-1995 against the disturbance, of their seniority and promotion of the juniors in time before _appropriate forum which was never done and by now the said decisions have attained finality and transaction being past and closed cannot be opened.
5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and record of the case. After having gone through the entire record we are of the considered opinion that judgments dated 12-7-1993 and 6-3-1995 of learned Service Tribunal irrespective of the fact whether these are in consonance with law or otherwise by now have attained finality. The judgments have been implemented in letter an spirit and valuable rights accrued in favour of the parties as a result of the implementation of the said judgments and it would be too late in the day to get it reversed. There is no denying the facts that the above mentioned judgments of learned Service Tribunal were never challenged and the petitioners had kept mum in spite of the fact that pursuant to said judgments not only their juniors were promoted but their inter se seniority was also disturbed. The petitioners should have approached the Service Tribunal in time or this Court for the redressal of their grievances by assailing judgment dated 12-7-1993 when Iqbal Ahmed, Sub-Inspector, of Police was brought at par by conferring seniority w,e,f, 8-7-1991 with that of Iftikhar Ahmed, Inspector of Police.
6. It is worth-mentioning here at this juncture that if prayer of all the petitioners is accepted they would become senior to a few hundreds of their senior colleagues who admittedly have not been impleaded as a party who would be adversely affected and thus these petitions are not competent. In fact this omission is not an inadvertent omission but deliberate one enabling the left over seniors to seek pro forma promotion subsequently by quoting their case as example. In fact a novel device had been adopted by Iqbal Ahmed, Sub-Inbspector of Police before learned Service Tribunal during previous litigation which unfortunately went unchecked but it can hardly renders any assistance now to the case of petitioners as Police Department has become conscious after getting up from the deep slumber.
7. The departmental representations of the petitioners were also time-barred as pro forma promotion to Iqbal Ahmed, Sub-Inspector of Police was granted on 13-1-1994 pursuance to the orders of learned Service Tribunal dated 12-7-1993 whereas the departmental representations were filed on different dates during 1995. It is well-settled by now "if original representation was barred by time and aggrieved employee does not disclose sufficient cause for such delay or inability to move Departmental Authority within prescribed period, then no subsequent order of disposal of such incompetent representation/appeal/review could create fresh cause of action or automatically operate to condone delay of limitation in availing the remedy under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act." In this regard we are fortified by the dictum as laid down in the following authorities:-- ' Abdul Wahid v. Chairman Central Board of Revenue (1998 SCM R 882); Aziz Ahmed v. Secretary to Government of Pakistan (1985 SCM R 368); WAPDA v. Aurangzeb (1988 SCMR 1354); Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Azim Khan (1989 SCM R 1271); (1982 SCM R 582); Muhammad Hasham v.
Inspector-General of Police (1990 SCM R 1440); Anwarul Haq v. Federation of Pakistan (1995 SCM R 1505); S.S. Qureshi and 15 others v. Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 5 others (1985 SCM R 1953); S.H.M. Rizvi and 5 others v. Maqsood Ahmed and 6 others (PLD 1981 SC 612); Chairman, PIAC v.
Nasim Malik (PLD 1990 SC 951).
8. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court that in view of the learned Service Tribunals judgments dated 12-7-1993 and 6-3-1995 pro forma promotion should have been granted to the petitioners for the reason that the said judgments are not applicable in their case being judgment in personam. In this regard reference can be made to the following authorities:-- ' Pir Bakhsh v. Chairman Allotment Committee (PLD 1987 SC 145)
' Muhammad Sohail v. Govt. Of N.-W.F.P. (1996 SCM R 218)
' M.A. Rashid Rana v. Secretary Home Govt. Of Punjab (1996 SCM R 1145)
9. Before parting with the judgment it is regretted to observe that the judgments of Service Tribunal dated 12-7-1993 and 6-3-1995 were never challenged by the Police Department either due to the inefficiency of concerned D.I.G./Legal Branch or deliberate connivance which aspect of the matter requires thorough probe as the said judgments had adversely affected the entire seniority concerning Multan Range as well as at the Provincial level. In fact no promotion should have been made in violation of rules 13-14 (2) (a)(b) of the Police Rules, .1934. No question of law of public importance is involved in the petitions which being meritless are dismissed and .