Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No.241 of 1984, decided on 3rd May, 1984.

(On appeal form the judgment dated 28‑12‑1983 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 239/27 of 1982).

Art. 2123)‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S.6 (6)‑‑Civil service‑‑Confirmation‑‑Petitioner recruited against temporary post when permanent post was available on date of appointment‑‑Order of confirmation from subsequent date impugned‑‑Such order should to deemed to have been appointed against permanent post and Civil Servant was entitled to be confirmed against same permanent post with effect from date of appointment‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑[Civil services].

Khalil Ramday, Addl. A.‑G. Punjab and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioners.

Riaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qadri,

Advocate on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 30th May, 1984.

.‑‑This petition is directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 28‑12‑1983 whereby the appeal of respondent No.1 was accepted and it was directed that he should be treated as having been appointed as a P.S.I. on a permanent post w.e.f. 12‑9‑1960 and that his seniority reckoned on the said basis.

According to the letter of his appointment, Ali Abbas, respondent No.1, was recruited on 12‑9‑1960 against a "temporary post", as P.S.I. The said respondent represented to the Department that as a permanent post was available when he was appointed on 12‑9‑1960 he should to deemed to have been appointed against the said permanent post. This request was turned down on the ground that no such permanent post existed on 12‑9‑1960. Ultimately, he was confirmed with effect from 1‑6‑1973. The standpoint of the Department was that a permanent post became available only with effect from the said date and that as soon as it became available the respondent was confirmed against it. Respondent No.1, however, continued to clamour that a permanent post was in existence ever since the date of‑his appointment i.e. 12‑9‑1960 and that the Department was unjustifiably refusing to accept this position and continued to submit representations urging this plea. Since all his attempts to get this plea accepted by the authorities failed, he filed an appeal befor the Punjab Service Tribunal. The said learned Tribunal, after carefully examining all the relevant record, found that it was established "without dispute that fit the appellant before them (respondent No. l herein) was recruited against fit permanent post on 12‑9‑1960 as P.S.I." and, therefore, upheld his plea and accepted the appeal by its order passed on 28‑12‑1983. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the abovementioned order of the Punjab Service Tribunal.

Mr. Khalil Ramdey, learned Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab, has been heard at some length. He raised several technical and procedural pleas to show that the appeal before the Service Tribunal was not competent and should not have been entertained muchless allowed. However, on the basic issue decided by the Tribunal, namely, as to whether a permanent post of a P.S.I. was, indeed, available on 12‑9‑1960, against which the respondent could be continued or that it became available for the first time only on 1‑6‑1973 when the respondent was actually confirmed, the learned Additional Advocate‑General was not able to controvert the finding recorded by the Tribunal that a permanent post was, indeed, in existence on 12‑9‑1960, against which the respondent was entitled to be confirmed.

In these circumstances, we do not consider this case to be a fit one for interference. Leave is refused.

M. I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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