Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. SUK‑137 of 1984, decided on 7th November, 1985.
‑‑‑Advance Chapter No. 1‑‑Seniority in selection posts Reckonable from date of appointment‑‑Ticket Collectors appointed in Grade I on ad hoc basis and subsequently completing technical training‑‑Appointment on ad hoc basis, in circumstances, deemed as temporary appointment and seniority to be determined from date of appointment‑‑Seniority disturbed on basis of completion of training‑‑Rules, in circumstances, held, violated.
P L D 1970 S C 203 ref.
Hassan Hameedi for Appellant.
Shabbir Awan, for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th August, 1985.
This appeal is directed against the order of the Sind Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur dated 16‑4‑1984.
2. The appellant, Muneer Ahmad is a Ticket Collector. He was appointed as a Ticket Collector, Grade I with effect from 4‑5‑1977. While, the respondents Nos. 3 to 15 were appointed subsequently and some of them were on ad hoc basis. The present appellant was also appointed on ad hoc basis. Respondent No.14, Muhammad Ismail was appointed in the year 1978 and his name did not appear in the seniority list because he had left the job and then re‑appointed as Ticket Collector, Grade II which was termed as an act of favouritism. The appellant was sent for technical training in the year 1979, which he passed and he was not sent for training earlier. The case of the appellant is that according to Railway personnel Manual at Advance Chapter No the seniority of employees in selection posts should be determined on the basis of the date of appointment, to such post, irrespective of the fact whether an employee is a substantive holder of the selection post or otherwise." The Railway department published a seniority list in the month of August, 1982, where the appellant was ranked at Serial No.95, while the respondent Nos. 3 to 15 were shown senior to the appellant. He, therefore, filed the grievance application.
3. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Hassan Hameedi for the appellant and Mr. Shabbir Awan, Advocate, for the respondents.
4. The arguments of Mr. Hassan Hameedi, the counsel for the appellant are that, the very Railway Rules are violated by fixing such a seniority and he relied on the Rule quoted above that the seniority of employees in selection posts should be determined on the basis of the date of appointment to such post, irrespective of the fact whether an employee is substantive holder of the selection post or otherwise. The word 'or otherwise' means all the categories. The ad hoc appointment is a temporary appointment and is covered by the word "or otherwise" and the appellant cannot be declared junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 15. He has referred me to the authority reported in P L D 1970 S C 203. The Supreme Court granted leave to an appeal to consider whether:‑"Vested rights of seniority in the cadre of an established service can be said to arise for purposes of enforcement through Law only on the date of induction into the permanent section of that service or whether in the alternative they exist and are so enforceable even before confirmation." Following extract is quoted from the said Judgment of the Supreme Court:
"It is wholly against all notions of natural justice that persons who join service in a grade first should be relegated to a junior position as against those who join later, merely because they fill vacancies which were deemed to be reserved for them. The ratio 50 : 50 between the direct recruits and the departmental promotes merely relates to the policy of their recruitment to the grade and is not to be extended to the fixation of their seniority or their confirmation inter se. All the incumbents have to be treated at par in the matter of their seniority in the grade after they enter it. There is no rule that confirmation in the grade is also to be made by rotation, that is to say, one direct recruit and one departmental promotee, have to be alternatively confirmed. Again, there is no rule that an incumbent holding a post in the grade in a temporary or officiating capacity should rank lower in point of seniority to one who is appointed later in the same capacity against a reserved post in. the same grade."
5. The decision is that the date of initial appointment shall be considered the date of seniority. The Labour Court has argued that the appellant was appointed initially as ad hoc appointment. Subsequently, the copies of ad hoc appointments were obtained and submitted before the Labour Court, of at least, Mukhtar Ali, Mahmood Iqbal, Abdul Rehman and Muhammad Yousaf. They were also appointed on ad hoc basis, but they were ranked as senior to the present appellant. The appellant was also sent later on to the Walton Training Institute, but this was a mechanism adopted by the Railway Department to show unfair practice. The word ad hoc does not reduce the rank of the appellant nor does it convey the meaning that ad hoc appointment was not an appointment with the department. Temporary as such. The promotion of ad hoc appointment (sic) or with the learned Labour Court was not justified and should be deemed to be temporary appointment.
6. The counsel for the Railway Department, Mr. Shabbir Awan quoted the Rules of the Railway Department and concedes to some extent that Rules are violated. For instance the Rule quoted above is clearly violated by the Railway Department. I find no way to maintain the order of the Labour Court and allow the appeal. Muneer Ahmad, the appellant may be deemed to be senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 15.
A. E. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer