Find a Lawyer

Case No. 269/1729 of 1982, decided on 4th November, 1982

‑‑ Seniority‑Official of Highway Department transferred to different circle on his request‑Seniority, in circumstances, held, rightly reckoned from date of joining new circle‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Waraich for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Syed Rasool Shah, Accounts Clerk, Office of Executive Engineer, Highway, Sheikhupura, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded chief Engineer, Punjab Highway Department, Lahore, Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Lahore, Muhammad Iqbal, Accounts Clerk, Highway Division, Gujranrvala and Muhammad Basbir Asif, Accounts Clerk, Highway Division, Gujranwala as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 (Annexures 'A', 'C' and alongwith Annexure 'D'). be set aside with costs.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was borne originally on the permanent establishment of the former Provincial Circle, Rawalpindi (presently Provincial Building Circle, Rawalpindi). Due to bifurcation of the Department, a Division named as IInd Construction Division, Rawalpindi was ordered to be shifted to Gujranwala and to function as Road Maintenance Division, Gujranwala. In this Division Mr. Abdul Shakoor Khan, Accounts Clerk, was transfer red to Gujranwala who belonged to Rawalpindi district and the appel lant's home district was Gujranwala. As such they made a request to Secretary, C & W for transfer on compassionate grounds. The appellant's request was accepted and he was transferred, on his own request, on compassionate grounds, to Gujranwala on 16th January, 1968. A seniority list of the Accounts Clerks of Highway Circle, Lahore was prepared by Respondent No. 2, wherein the appellant's name was at Sr. No. 13 and the names of the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been placed on St. Nos. 14 and 17 in the said seniority list (Annexure 'A'). The appellant made representations (Annexure 'B') against this seniority list to Chief Engineer, Punjab Highway, Lahore wherein he had requested that his seniority should have been taken from the original date of his appointment in the Provincial Circle, Rawalpindi i.e. 30th September, 1967 and not from the date of his transfer to Gujranwala i. e. 17th January, 1968, because the Road Maintenance Division prior to its shifting at Gujranwala was under Provincial Circle, Rawalpindi and the lien of the staff transferred en bloc was also to be kept in that circle under standing instructions of the C & W Department having no separate cadre. Furthermore as per Notification No. F‑111 (C & W)‑1‑74/ dated 24th September, 1974, the appellant's seniority was to be fixed in the Highway Circle, Lahore as at that time he was working in the Highway Division, Sialkot under the Highway Circle, Lahore keeping in view the standing instructions on the basis "as is where is". As such the appellant should have been given due right in this circle and not from the date of which he joined Road Maintenance Division, Gujranwala. Thus, the seniority list framed in this circle not in considered and rejected by the Chief Engineer, Highway vide his order dated 29th April, 1982 conveyed by Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, endst. No. 1878/E, dated 12th May, 1982. The appellant has, further prayed that due to this reason respondents Nos. 3 and 4, though junior to him, have been promoted and appointed in the newly‑formed Highway Circle, Gujranwala, Hence this appeal.

4. The arguments were put forth by both the counsel of the parties. The main point argued was whether the appellant himself made a request for transfer to Gujranwala or his transfer was made in the public interest. This was the basic issue for determining the date of the appel lant's appointment for fixing his seniority at a proper and correct place. The learned District Attorney referred to a request on record dated 3rd October, 1967 made by the appellant attached with the parawise com ments offered by the respondent No. 2, from where it is clear that the appellant was transferred to Gujranwala on his own request and was not transferred in the public interest. Thus according to the settled rules and laws on the issue the learned District Attorney submitted, the appel lant has to be shown junior to others who were already working in the said Division, on the date of his joining i. e. 16th January; 1968. Thus it was concluded by the learned District Attorney that the appellant has been given correct place in the seniority list. Further his claim regarding promotion of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, it was further pointed out by the learned District Attorney that they have been posted in their own pay and scale as is clear from Annexure 'D' of the appeal, and hence it is not correct that they have been promoted. Furthermore, options were invited from all the Highway Circles and other Directorates or Institu tions attached with the Department from the non‑gazetted establishments if they wanted to serve in the newly‑created Highway Circle; Gujranwala. The appellant also opted for the same but, though, with unjustified demand. Hence his option, being conditional, could not be accepted in view of the fact be wanted to go there only as Head Clerk and not as Accounts Clerk i. e. his present post. As he did not join the newly created Circle the appellant has no right or claim for any post or promotion in that circle.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record carefully. It is established from the record that the appellant came to Gujranwala at .his own request made on 3rd October, 1961 and his seniority has been properly shown from 16th January, 1968, the date of his joining in Gujranwala Circle. The law is well‑settled on thin issue, as the appellant was transferred at his own request, hence his date of joining in the new circle of Gujranwala i. e. 16th January, 1968 is to be taken for the purposes of fixation of his seniority vis‑a‑vis the Accounts Clerk working already in that Circle who would be automatically senior to him on that date. We have also satisfied that the appellant did not opt properly to be accommodated in the newly‑created Highway Circle, Gujranwala and has no right to claim seniority there as well.

6. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There is no order as to costs.

Appeal 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.