Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 139 and 140‑R of 1981, decided on 14th November, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar Service Tribunal Islamabad, dated 10‑5‑1981 in Appeal Nos. 33(R) and 34(R) of 1981).

Civil Servants (Change In Nomenclature of Services and Abolition of Classes) Rules, 1973‑

---R. 8‑Ad hoc appointment‑Promotion‑Seniority‑Petitioners ad hoc appointees contending that reservations of, posts for purposes of appointments/promotion of persons belonging to a particular service or cadre having been abolished by r. 8 ad hoc and purely temporary promotion of petitioners to a class of post (for direct recruits) to which petitioners (promotees) did not belong, deemed to have been rendered into promotion or regular basis and consequently petitioners entitled to be ranked senior to all those in fact appointed on regular basis‑Held : Not necessary to give any final decision on question raised for reasons firstly that all persons who would have been affected if petitioner's plea were allowed being not impleaded as parties either before Tribunal or before Supreme Court no orders could be passed behind their back and secondly petitioners having accepted and continued to accept basis of their appointment conduct of petitioners led to appointments being made on regular basis for nearly seven years if petitioner's plea were accepted resultant disturbance in departmental set up would adversely affect several persons for fault of theirs‑Additionally petitioners clearly accepted their promotion on condition of not claiming seniority on basis of such promotion and their promotion/appointments to Grade 17 having lapsed several years ago they did not ask for and press for their promotion or regular basis for several years‑Leave to appeal refused. [Civil service].

Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 14th November, 1981.

, J.‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment of Service Tribunal dated 10‑5‑1981 in these two connected matters, whereby the appeals of the petitioners raising question of seniority were dismissed.

The petitioners claim to have entered Pakistan Postal Superintendent Services in grade 16 in 1967, although they joined the service in 1968. They were promoted on ad hoc basis to grade 17 by order/notification dated, 2‑8‑1973. The relevant portion whereof required examination reads as follows :‑

"The President is pleased to approve the under mentioned officers of the Postal Superintendent Service, Class‑I1, in the order of preference as shown below, for promotion purely as a temporary measure and on ad hoc basis, to the Pakistan Postal Service, Class‑I (Junior Scale), with immediate effect and until 30th June, 1974 .

The above‑named officers should be informed in explicit words that these ad hoc appointments are being made in the exigencies of services on purely temporary basis. subject to replacement by the Commission's nominees through Central Superior Services examinations or regular departmental promotion and that these ad hoc appointments will not confer on them any claims or right for appointment on regular basis or for seniority when the posts are filled in on regular basis in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, approved by the Establish ment Division and the Commission."

The petitioners' claim to have joined grade 17 posts on 28‑8‑1973.

Although the Ad hoc and purely temporary' promotion of the petitioners with clear understanding that it would not give them any benefit regarding seniority, lapsed on 30th June, 1974. They, it is stated, continued to perform duties in grade 17 till 3rd September, 1980 when the following order/notification was issued :‑

"Notification.‑Islamabad, the 3rd September, 1980.

No. Staff‑136, Coll‑III.‑In supersession of this Ministry's notification No. S. 5‑7/76 dated the 2nd March, 1978, the following Grade‑16 officers of the former Postal Superintendents Service, Class‑11, who have been officiating in Grade‑17 (Postal Group) on temporary and adhoc basis, are promoted to Grade‑17 (Postal Group) on regular basis with immediate effect :

(1) Mrs. Zabida Saeed Qureshi.

(2) Mr. Nimatullah.

(3) Mr. Izharul Huque.

(4) Mr. Muhammad Asghar.

(5) Mr. Raheel Asghar Ginai.

(6) Mr. M. Ehsan Siddiqui.

2. The following Grade‑16 Officers of the former Postal Superintendents Service, Class‑II, are promoted to grade‑17 (Postal Group) on regular basis with immediate effect:-

(1) Mr. Zakaullah.

(2) Mr. S. Afzal Imam.

(3) Mr. S. A. Kazim.

3. The names of aforementioned nine officers have been arranged in order of seniority. These departmentally promoted Officers will rank senior as a class to the directly recruited officers who joined service (Postal Group) in the year 1980."

The petitioners interpreted the aforequoted notification that incumbents appointed in grade 17 on regular basis from 1973 to 1980 were placed senior to them. Therefore, they first made a departmental representation and on their failure to receive any response, appeals were then filed before the Tribunal and the same having been dismissed, they have sought leave to appeal.

Learned counsel relying on rule 8 of the Civil Servants (Change in Nomenclature of Services and Abolition of Classes) Rules, 1973, has contended : that reservations of post for purposes of appointments promotion of persons belonging to a particular service or cadre having been abolished by the said rule, the ad hoc and purely temporary promotion of the petitioners to a clause of post (for direct recruits) to which the petitioner (promotees) did not belong, would be deemed in law to have been rendered into a promotion on regular basis. Therefore, they would be entitled to be ranked as senior to all those persons who were in fact appointed on regular basis for seven years between 1973 and 1980. Prima facie, the argument of the learned counsel has not impressed us.

However, in the circumstances of this case, we do not consider it necessary to give any final decision on the question raised by the learned counsel for the reasons that firstly all those persons who would have been affected if the plea of the petitioners would have been allowed by the Tribunal were not impleaded as parties before the Tribunal nor have they been now impleaded as respondents in these petitions ; be that as it may, the rules being relied upon having been promulgated in November, 1973 the petitioners accepted and continued to accept the basis of their appoint ment as contained in the original notification of appointment dated 2‑8‑1973 ; that the foregoing conduct of the petitioner led to the appointments being made on regular basis for nearly seven years, and if now their plea is accepted, the resultant disturbance in the departmental set up would adversely affect several persons for no fault of their though on account of inaction of the petitioners ; the language used in the notification of 2‑8‑1973 is so clear that the petitioners would be deemed to have clearly accepted the promotion in question on condition that they would not claim seniority on its basis ; and lastly, that the promotion/appointment of the petitioners to grade 17 have been lapsed in June, 1974, they did not ask for and press for their promotion on regular basis for nearly six years.

The cumulative effect of the foregoing consideration is that it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. These petitions accordingly are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.