Find a Lawyer

Case No. 200/1333 of 1981, decided on 12th January, 1982.

‑‑ Regional cadres‑Seniority maintained on Regional cadre‑Official of one cadre working in temporary office in other Region‑Cannot claim to be considered as allocatee of said Region.

‑‑ S. 4 (b)‑Promotion‑Prerogative of departmental authorities keeping in view principle of seniority‑cum‑fitness‑Tribunal not empowered to promote any one.

Ch. Muhammad Tufail Basra for Appellants.

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

‑Messrs Abdul Ghafoor and Sikandar Hayat have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. 1974, in which they have impleaded Superintending Engineer, Headquarters Central Region, Lahore. Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Central Region, Lahore, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irriga tion and Power Department, Lahore and Messrs Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Mateen, Assistants Office of Director, Indus Water Treaty, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellants have prayed that the direction be issued to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 be taken back to the office of said respondents and resultantly the Appellants be posted to the posts of Assistants in consequence of the above direction. They have also prayed that the back benefits of the post of Assistants from the date of posting of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 be also given to them:,‑

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were the employees of Director, Indus Water Treaty, Punjab, Lahore, working as Senior Clerks since 1975 and 1974, respectively. Appellant No. I was a regular allocatee of Faisalabad Irrigation Region, while appellant No. 2 was allocate of Lahore Region. This Directorate was earlier an independent Directorate although on temporary basis and it was finally attached to the office of respondent No. 2 since 1973. The appellant at one stage felt that his rights of promotion were being discriminated and he came before this Tribunals through Appeal No 216 of 1979, which was dismissed with the following observations :‑

" ..We feel it fair that the department should consider and accommodate them in the organization on permanent basis and also to redress their grievances with regard to their chances of promotion ".

In view of the said observation the respondent No. 3 was pleased to issue a direction as under :‑

"It .has been decided by the Government that promotions in the vacancies in I. W. T. & R. should be made from within 1. W. T. Directorate which should be treated as a permanent organisation for all intents and purposes."

Despite this direction, 'according to the appellants, they have not been given their due seniority and promotion so requested by them. A representation was filed by appellant No. 1 to respondent No. 3, but no response was made and the same remained in the cold storage. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants 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. The main grievance of the appellants is that the judgment of this Tribunal was not being implemented and the appellants were not being given their due seniority and promotion which they fully deserve. On the other hand learned District Attorney assisted by Mr. Noor Muhammad Shah, Administrative Officer representing Central Region, Irrigation Depart ment, has submitted that the names of the appellants exist on the cadre of Faisalabad and they would be within their own right to seek promotion or any other benefits from the said cadre and in case the appellants have chosen to come to the Central Region then according to rules, they had to be shown at the bottom of the seniority list of the Central Region. With regard to the implementation of this Tribunal's judgment it has been submitted that the appeal was duly dismissed and the recommendatory observation is being honoured to all possible extent.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have perused the record of the case which shows that Messrs Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Mateen respondents joined as Senior Clerks on 1st May, 1962, whereas Sikandar Hayat appellant was appointed Senior Clerk on 19th March, 1974 and Abdul Ghafoor on 1st March, 1975. Moreover, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are working in Indus Water Treaty Directorate before the policy decision taken and as the appellants were the allocatees of Faisalabad and Lahore Region, respec tively, where their services and interest are being watched, therefore, they car not be allowed to have their allocation in Irrigation Central Region as well. We have further found that Indus Water Treaty Organization was still a temporary organisation as Finance Department had not agreed to the conversion of the posts sanctioned for this Directorate into permanent one. The ministerial cadre establishment working there, are allocatees of different Regions of the Department which maintain their seniority alongwith other allocatees of those Regions and watched their service interests. In view of the above situation, as it exists on the record, Messrs Abdul Ghafoor and Sikandar Hayat appellants, before us, being allocatees of Faisalabad and Lahore Region, cannot be considered as allocatees of Irrigation Central Region as well.

7. With regard to their claim of promotion it is a well‑settled principle of law that this Tribunal does not have powers to promote any body as laid down in section 4 (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, as this prerogative is only left with the superiors of the appellants who have to make promotions keeping in view the golden principle of seniority‑cum- fitness.

8. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. Parties shall bear their own costs.

A. E. 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.