Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN‑487 of 1983, decided on 25th May, 1984.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Worker in Railways‑Temporarily promoted as Sub. Engineer in stopgap arrangement‑Transferred against a work- charged post after five months‑Claims confirmation on ground that after promotion he had completed satisfactorily period of one year‑Plea not accepted because confirmation can be claimed on completing probationery period against a permanent post.

Gulzar Ahmad Alvi for Appellant.

Syed Ibrar Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 16th May, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 15th June, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, accepting the grievance petition of the respondent for his confirmation as Sub‑Engineer.

2. The respondent was promoted as Sub‑Engineer temporarily in stopgap arrangement vide order Exh. P‑7, dated 13th November, 1979 till vacancy was filled in regularly by posting of staff qualified in course P‑26. On 20th May, 1980 he was transferred to Construction Division as Sub- Engineer against a work‑charged post where be remained posted upto 20th May, 1982 when he was transferred vide order dated 19th May, 1982 in the same capacity. The respondent claimed confirmation on the ground that after promotion, he completed satisfactorily the probationary period of one year but actually this is not so. The learned lower Court fell in error as it failed to notice that before the respondent could complete probationary period, he was posted against a work charged post. This is clear from Exh. R‑1.. This document dated 19th May, 1982, no doubt, does not bear the exhibit‑ mark Exh. R‑1 but the document does not appear to have been smuggled in the case. The learned counsel for the appellant tendered document Exh. R‑1 in evidence. There are two documents which do not bear exhibit marks. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that photo copy of this Tribunal's judgment was, in reality, tendered in evidence and by mistake exhibit mark was not put. I do not find any force in this argument. Copies of judgments of Courts are not tendered in evidence. So in reality the copy of the order dated 19th May, 1982 was tendered in evidence and by mistake the exhibit mark could not be put on it. Exh. R‑1 shows that after serving for about five months in stop gap arrangement, the respondent was posted against a work charged post.

He did not challenge this posting, which shows that some qualified person was posted at D. G. Khan; therefore, he was shifted and as no regular vacancy was available, he was posted against a work charged post. Since be bad not completed by then the probationary period of one year, he even could not have successfully challenged his posting against the work-charged post. He did not prove that after 20th May, 1980 till making the petition under section 25‑A he was even posted against any permanent post of Sub‑Engineer and completed one year's probationary period. Needless to say that confirmation can be claimed on account of completing probationary period against a permanent post. Exh. R‑1 clearly shows that before 20th May, 1980 the respondent had been working against a work charged .post and vide the said order had been sent to D. G. Khan in the same capacity ‑i. e. against work-charged post. As he did not complete the probationary period of one year against any permanent vacancy of Sub‑Engineer, he was rightly not confirmed. In the circumstances discussed above, the impugned decision of the learned lower Court is not maintainable.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respon dent is dismissed.

M. I.

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.