Find a Lawyer

Case No. 432/1511 of 1981, decided on 15th January, 1983.

‑‑ S. 4 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑Appeal before Service Tribunal ‑Limitation‑Condonation of delay‑Representa tion to departmental authorities remaining undecided till date of filing appeal despite repeated reminders for four years‑Appellant, in circumstances, held, could not be penalised as negligent in filing appeal in time‑Application for condonation of delay accepted.

‑‑ S. 4‑Promotion‑Appellant possessing requisite qualifications for induction to higher grade but ignored discriminately‑Juniors inducted to higher grade‑Claim of appellant supported by record -Appeal, in circumstances, accepted and appellant directed to be deemed in higher grade from date her junior inducted therein.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

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

‑Mrs. Nasim Habib Sahibzada, Senior Subject Specialist, Education Extension Centre, Wahdat Colony, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which she has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore, as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal she has prayed that Notification, dated 25th July, 1977, insofar as it ignored the appellant to be considered for promo tion, be set aside and respondent be directed to consider the appellant for promotion for N. P. S. 19 from 1st May, 1977 from the date from which her junior has been promoted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed in Grade‑18 by the Education Department School/Administrative Cadre, Women's Branch, w. e. f. 28th August, 1972, on regular basis and was posted as Inspectoress of Schools, Multan Division, Multan. The appellant was subsequently appointed as Divisional Director Education, Multan on ad hoc basis in relaxation of rules and was subsequently posted as Deputy Secretary, S & G A Department against an ex‑cadre post. However, the promotion of the appellant to Grade‑19 was reviewed and rescinded in the year, 1977, resulting in her reversion to her own cadre in Grade‑18, in the Education Department, w. e. f. 26th December, 1977. Despite this event the seniority list of Teachers holding teaching and non -teaching posts in N. P. S.‑18 (Women's Section) (School[Administrative Cadre), corrected upto 1st January, 1977, was issued by the respondent in which the appellant was shown at Serial No. 7. Vide notification, dated 25th July, 1977 the respondent awarded promotions to Officers of Educa tion Department in N. P. S.‑18 to Grad;‑19, on the basis of their being in Class I Senior, now Grade‑18, by which Miss F. Tufail at Serial No. 6, was also awarded N. P. S.‑19 in absentia. According to the earlier seniori ty list the said Miss F. Tufail was junior to the appellant in N. P. S‑18. The appellant represented for the award of Grade‑19 vide representation, dated 30th August, 1977, from the date, her aforesaid junior was promoted which is still pending with the Department without any positive decision. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appel lant does not seek for any promotion in any manner and only wants that her status be regularized in N. P. S.‑19 as the same has been done in accordance with the Notification, dated 25th July, 1977, in case of a number of her colleagues including the one junior to her namely Miss F. Tufail, mentioned at Serial No. 6 in the said notification as the variation to do so, would be an act of discrimination on the part of the Government/ Respondent when the case of the appellant is fully at par with their case.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney had submitted that since the promotion was ordered in relaxation of rules and under political pressure, therefore, she was not eligible for N. P. S. 19.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant is definitely senior in N. P. S. 18 to Miss F. Tufail and also fulfils the two pre‑requisite conditions laid down in the Notification of 25th July, 1977, placed on the record as Annexure 'B'. These two conditions are as under :‑---

(1) Officers who were drawing pay in consolidated scale of pay Rs. 875‑75‑1,700 on 2nd July, 1974.

(2) Officers who were born on the Administrative/Schools Cadre and Principals of Comprehensive Schools.

We have also taken into consideration that the claim of the appellant has been admitted in para. 3 of the written statement of the respondent as well as the same is reflected in the seniority list of N. P. S. 18 officers as corrected upto 1st January, 1977, Annexure A'.

8. We have seen the record of this case and do not find any evidence to the effect that the appellant was inducted into N. P. S. 19 under some political pressure. However, we do not enter into this dispute as the appellant had already been reverted from N. P. S. 19 to N. P. S. 18 which was her substantive grade and has not taken exception to the same. We further find no Justification in the arguments of the learned District Attorney that the appellant was not eligible for N. P. S. 19, as mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment, she fulfils all the prerequisite condition for such Grade and the Government vide Notification of 25th July, 1977 has put all the officers fulfilling these qualifications into Grade‑19, on me as well as female sides including her aforesaid junior.

9. Although no objection has been taken by the respondent wit regard to the maintainability of appeal on the point of limitation yet w find an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay filed by the appellant herself. The reason for delay given in this application is that her representation with the departmental authorities was never decided, despite a number of reminders, therefore, she ultimately got fed up with this attitude of the Respondent and filed this appear against the impugned order of 1977 for the prefect that her representation could not be decided by the respondent till the time of filing of this appeal. We have seen the record and find that the appellant did make representa tions which are still unanswered, therefore, she cannot be penalised as negligent in filing the appeal in time, we accept the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay.

10. In view of the above we find lot of force in the claim of the appel lant, therefore, we accept the appeal and direct that she deemed to be in N. P. S. 19 from 1st May, 1977, the date on which her aforesaid junior as well as others of her qualifications was inducted into N. P. S. 19. There will be no order as to costs. To be communicated to the parties.

A. E. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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