Find a Lawyer

Case No. 69/17 of 1985, decided on 8th May, 1985.

‑‑‑R. 8(1)(b)‑‑West Pakistan Labour Welfare (Subordinate Service) Rules, 1369‑‑Seniority‑‑Promotees of same batch but belonging to different feeding cadres‑‑ Determining factor‑‑Age and not date of continuous appointment to post‑‑Promotions against post of Assistant Labour Officer made from among Economic Investigators (Pay Scale No.10) and Labour Inspectors (Pay Scale No.9)‑‑Labour Inspector on promotion joining as Assistant Labour Officer earlier than date of joining as such by Economic Investigator‑‑Person older in age, in circumstances, held, senior to younger in age.

Nisar Ahmad Butt for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

Hamid Khan for the Contesting Respondent.

‑‑Muzammal Pasha, Assistant Labour Officer, Kasur, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order passed by respondent No.2 and communicated by respondent No‑1 to the appellant on 2‑2‑1985. He has impleaded the Director, Labour Welfare Punjab, Lahore, Secretary Labour, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and Saleem Javaid Ghori, Assistant Labour Officer, posted at Multan, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and appellant be declared senior to respondent No.3.

3. Brief facts leading to this case are that the appellant joined service in the Labour Department as Economic Investigator in NPS‑10, whereas respondent No.3 joined as Labour Inspector in NPS‑9. In the year 1980 departmental promotions were made on 14‑4‑1980, the appellant and contesting respondent No.3 both were promoted as Assistant Labour Officers in NPS‑11 from the same domicile region viz. Bahawalpur. The appellant received order of promotion, dated 14‑4‑1980 and joined duties of Rahimyar Khan on 16‑4‑1980 whereas respondent No. 3 joined immediately. The final seniority list of Assistant Labour Officers was issued on 3‑11‑1984, wherein the appellant was shown senior to respondent No. 3 in Bahawalpur Region. However, under the order of Deputy Secretary (Admn), Labour Department, the appellant was shown junior to respondent No. 3. Having come to know of this event the appellant filed representation by the competent authority i.e. respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 held that as respondent No. 3 being older in age would rank senior to Muzammal Pasha (the appellant) in Bahawalpur Region. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Hamid Khan, counsel for contesting respondent No.3 and learned District Attorney on behalf of respondent Government, and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 was against law and facts of the case and was on the face of it, illegal and void. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Rule 8(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules), 1974. After conceding the fact that order of promotion of the appellant and respondent No.3 was passed in the same batch and on the same date but argued that the appellant would prove this fact that as Assistant Labour Officer joined prior to respondent No.3 and, therefore, would be senior to respondent No.3.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department submitted by respondents No.l and 2 through the Under Secretary (Lab.I) and has submitted that the controversy of this seniority matter was referred to S.G. & A.I. Department and Law Department vide Government of the Punjab, Labour Department Memo. No. Lab. (I)8(6)/83, dated 27‑1‑1985 and after the said advice the matter was settled and respondent No.3 was made senior to the appellant. Learned District Attorney has conceded that the seniority list of Assistant Labour Officers as stood on 30‑9‑1984, was circulated by the Authority. However, before the said seniority list was circulated, Mr. Tanveer-ud-Din a domicile of Sahiwal submitted a representation to respondent No.2, on 25‑7‑1983, against provisional seniority list of Assistant Labour Officers as it stood on 2‑7‑1983. Similar representation was also filed by respondent No. 3 against wrongful placement of the appellant as Assistant Labour Officer wherein he was shown senior to the respondent and it was found that as both of them were promoted on the same date in the same batch i.e. 14‑4‑1980, therefore, the date of joining would be immaterial and in accordance with Rule 8(I)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions) of Service Rules, 1974, which has also been relied by the appellant, the person older in age would rank senior to the younger person on promotion to the higher post.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant was promoted to the rank of Assistant Labour Officer on the strength of 10% quota reserved for promotion from the posts of Economic Investigators/ Statistical Assistant/ Legal Assistants to the post of Assistant Labour Officers whereas the respondent No.3 was promoted as Assistant Labour Officer from among the members of service holding the post of Labour Inspector with at least 3 years experience in the Region where the vacancies occurred. The claim of the appellant is based on the plea that as he joined as Assistant Labour Officer earlier than respondent No.3, therefore, on the date of continuous appointment to service, he would rank senior to him as Assistant Labour Officer, this plea was examined by the Services, General Administration and Information Department/Law Department but the same was not accepted. According to the opinion of the said two Departments, the date of joining was immaterial and only the date of appointment order would determine the merit of seniority of the appellant as well as respondent.

8. What we find is that the appellant and respondent No.3 were) appointed as Assistant Labour Officers on the same date from the same batch. The older in age should have to be declared senior than the younger person. Rule 8(I)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of service) Rules, 1974, which has been relied on by the appellant himself, does not help him in any manner as person older in age shall rank senior to the younger person.

9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to 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.