Find a Lawyer

Case No. 326/574 of 1979, decided on 24th November, 1982.

‑‑ R. 13‑Seniority‑Civil servant brought on permanent establish ment from 30th April, 1963 against an existing permanent vacancy against quota reserved for ex‑army personnel and stood confirmed against that post with effect from 30th April, 1963 and this fact proved from record‑Parawise comments offered by Department also not controverting claim of civil servant regarding his confirma tion into service, on 30th April, 1963‑Civil servant, held, senior in rank by virtue of his confirmation on earlier date and as such declared senior to opponent.

Nayyar Iqbal Ghauri for Appellant.

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

‑Ajmal Khan Forester, Sargodha Forest Division, Sargodha has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which be has impleaded Conservator of Forest, Sargodha Circle, Sargodha and Messrs Ghias‑ud‑Din and 46 others as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the respondent be directed to amend the impugned seniority list Annexure F' and place the appellant at Serial No. 2 instead of Serial No. 48.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined Bhakhar Forest Division after successful completion of forester course on 30th April, 1963 and was brought on permanent establishment from the same date against the existing permanent vacancy of the Division against the quota reserved for ex‑army personnels. The appellant requested the respondent to correct his service record accordingly. This request of the appellant was conceded by respondent No. 1 vide Annexure B'. The appellant moved the Divisional Forest Officer, Shahpur, Jhurabad, to issue a correct seniority list as it stood after 1st July, 1971. He was informed that the request has been received and action will be taken on it. He kept on reminding the authorities but to no effect. Ultimately respondent No. 1 prepared a seniority list of Foresters of Sargodha Circle, dated 1st March, 1979 in which appellant has been placed at serial No. 48 whereas he was senior to most of the members of his service and should have been placed at serial No. 2. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney alongwith the counsel for respondents and have perused the parawise comments filed by respondent No. 1 as well as the entire record of this case carefully.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to rule 13 of the Punjab Foresters Subordinate Service (Executive Section) Rules, 1948, seniority of members of the service shall in class of appointment shown in Appendix 'A' be determined by the dates of their substantive appointment to a permanent vacancy in such class. According to the learned counsel as the appellant was brought on permanent establishment and stood confirmed from 30th April, 1963, therefore, he will rank senior to those who have been confirmed after him.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has challenged the very appointment, promotion and confirmation as illegal and without any authority. In this manner the learned counsel has side tracked the issue so before us and has persuaded us to go into matters which are at this stage not subject‑matter for determination.

7. We have looked into the record of this case and find that the appellant was brought on permanent establishment from 30th April, 1963 against an existing permanent vacancy of the Division against the quota reserved for the ex‑army personnel. This fact stands proved by Annexure 'A'. We have also satisfied ourselves by placing reliance on Annexure 'B' which is based on the order of Conservator of Forests, Sargodha Circle, which certifies that the appellant stood confirmed from 30th April, 1963. This position has been further verified by us from Annexure 'F' column 8 of seniority list where the appellant has been declared to be a confirmed person in service from 30th April, 1963. We have also examined the parawise comments filed by the Conservator of Forests respondent No. 1 in this case which do not controvert the claim of the appellant in any manner that he was confirmed into service on 30th April, 1963. This being the position established from the record of this case as well as from the comments filed by the respondent No. 1, we are fully satisfied with the claim of the appellant that he would rank senior by virtue of his con firmation an earlier date over the respondents.

8. We are afraid that we cannot go at this stage of this case into matters which have been agitated before us by the respondents, counsel relating to the very appointment/induction into service of the appellant. If the respondents feel that the appellant has been wrongly inducted into service or confirmed by the respondent No. 1/2, the only course open for them would be first of all to agitate this matter before the appointing authority of the appellant and if their claim is rejected they would have a legal remedy against the same.

9. In view of the above analysis of the facts as well as of the legal position in this case, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal before us so filed by the appellant is liable to succeed.

10. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned seniority list and direct the respondent No.1 to confer upon the appellant his due seniority vis‑a‑vis the date of his confirmation i.e. 30th April, 1963 over the respondents.

Parties will bear their own costs.

M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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