Find a Lawyer

Case No. 415/1343 of 1981, decided on 27th April, 1982.

‑‑ S. 4‑Seniority‑Claim of employee based on ad hoc appoint ment and irregular promotion of another employee‑Allegation of favouritism challenged before Tribunal after lapse of 7 years -Promotion having been made through regular notification of Governor on recommendation of Selection Board found in order- Assessment of promotion being out of its jurisdiction, Tribunal declined to interfere ‑ Appeal not maintainable and without merits.

Masud Ahmed Riaz for Appellant.

H. R. Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent No. 1.

Sh. Manzoor Ahmad for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 27th April, 1982.

‑‑ In the case of Ch. Din Muhammad, an appeal has been filed under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department and Malik Muhammad Ashraf, Director Programme, Rural Development Department, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal it has been submitted that the impugned order, dated 18th June, 1979 and the final order dated 29th June, 1981 be set aside and the appellant be shown as senior to respondent No. 2. It has been further prayed, that appointment of respondent No. 2 as Deputy Director from 17th December, 1973 be declared as an ad hoc appointment.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as Development Officer in August, 1956 and was selected for appointment as Deputy Director now re‑designated as Assistant Director Local Govern ment in N. P. S.‑17, w.e.f. 17th January, 1960. Appellant was promoted as Director in N. P. S.‑18 in the Local Government Department w.e.f. 17th January, 1974. Respondent No. 1 issued Gradation List of Officers of Local Government Department vide letter, dated 18th June, 1979 in which respondent No. 2 was shown at Serial No. 1, whereas the appellant was shown at Serial No. 2. The appellant submitted his representation dated 23rd August, 1979 to respondent No. 1, in which he pointed out that the appellant was selected and promoted earlier than Malik Muhammad Ashraf Respondent No. 2, therefore, basically he was senior to him. The said representation has now been rejected by the respondent vide his letter, dated 29th June, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the appellant has been selected and promoted as Deputy Director in 1960, therefore, was senior to respondent No. 2 Malik Muhammad Ashraf, who was promoted in the year 1961. It has been further submitted that the promotion of respondent No. 2 was irregular and did not confer upon him any right. Learned counsel for the appellant has further asserted the observation by the respondents wherein it has been stated that merger of three organization i.e. Peoples Works Programme, Local Government and 1. R. D. P., took place on 9th October, 1978, therefore, all the officers have been given their seniority from the date of officiation in the grade. The respondents have further observed that since the date of appointment of respondent No. 2 in the Grade 18, was earlier as such he had been placed senior to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged this stand by submitting that the promotion of respondent No. 2 as Deputy Director was defective, therefore, the same should have been ignored. He has further urged that respondent No. 2 as well as the appellant, initially belonged to the Local Government Department and in that Department respondent No. 2 was always junior to the appellant, therefore, respondent No. 2 will remain junior to the appellant on the merger of the said organization. He has repelled the arguments from respondent side that the ex padre appointment of respondents No.2 will be the basis for the seniority. While concluding the appellant has all along challenged the promotion of respondent No. 2 calling it as irregular as well as an act of nepotism on the part of Pakistan Peoples Party which of Peoples Works Programme in N. P. S.‑18, whereas the appellant was promoted later in the cadre of Local Government Department in N. P: S.‑18.

5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments raised by the parties in support of their contentions and find that appeal although within time yet the same is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in section 4(1)(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The history of this case vis‑a‑vis limitation would be as under----

Impugned order was passed on 18th June, 1979 (seniority list).. Representation against it was made on 23rd August, 1979. This was rejected on 29th June, 1981, who communicated on 15th July, 1981. The appeal has been filed on 13th August, 1981. Thus, the appeal would be in time. With regard to our findings that the appeal is not maintainable we would rely mostly on the grounds of appeal as given by the appellant himself. The perusal of para. 2 would show that all along the appellant had been complaining that the promotion of respondent No. 2 was irregular and was made at the instance of then Chief Minister of the P. P. P. and was thus liable to be stuck down. In para. 3 be has repeated the same story and has made a grievance that the appellant was all along ad hoc, therefore, the same would not confer any right of seniority on the respondent over the appellant. Para. 4 cannot relate to the history of M. L. I. 21 and dubbs the promotion as an act of favouritism. In paras. 5 and 6 of the appeal, the appellant has been clamouring all along that the respondent has sneaked over him through political pressure. It is only in the end that a mention of seniority list has also been made but the basis for claiming seniority over the respondent is the same i.e, illegal promotion of respondent Malik Muhammad Asbraf.

7. Section 4(i)(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, clearly lays down that no appeal shall lie with the Tribunal against an order or decision of the Departmental Authority determining fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or holding a particular post or promoted to a higher grade. The incident of promotion took place in 1974 through regular notification of the Governor on the recommendation of the Selection Board, therefore, this Tribunal cannot look or probe into this matter as the assessment of promotion has been clearly taken out from the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Furthermore, the promotion took place in the year 1974 and the same cannot be challenged by the appellant before any forum after a lapse of 7 years.

8. With regard to the seniority list it would be sufficient to say that the same has been prepared on the principle that the respondent was inducted to Grade‑18 earlier than the appellant, therefore, he would rank senior to him. We do not find any reason to interfere with the main seniority list which according to the explanation given by the respondent and mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment in detail, is un-exception able. We are not impressed by the other arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the promotion of appellant falls within the mischief. M. L. L, therefore, it should be struck down as illegal. It is established on the record that ad hoc appointment was regularised by the Governor in the year 1974, the same cannot be looked into under M. L. I. 21 which was only promulgated to assess the eligibility of a person so appointed between the years 1972 to 1977 or examine the cases of those who were ad hoc appointees at that time. Malik Muhammad Ashraf case as explained by respondent No. 1, in his parawise comments, did not fall under M. L. I. 21, therefore, his promotion was considered in order and was not scrutinized by the Screening Committee.

9. In the light of the above we are of the considered opinion that the appeal before us is not maintainable as well as not without any merits, we, therefore, proceed to dismiss the same. However, there will be no order as to costs.

M. I. 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.