Find a Lawyer

‑‑S. 4(1)(c)‑‑Appellant seeking relief against order dated 9‑6‑1969‑ Held: Tribunal cannot hear appeal against order or decision of departmental authority made at any time before 1‑7‑1969.

‑‑‑ Appellant denied crossing over to next higher pay scale due to two adverse entries in his A.C.R.‑‑Order, held, valid and lawful.

Appellant in person.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

‑‑The appellant has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, and the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the reversion of the appellant from Senior Superintendent was void, unlawful and ineffective and he be considered as continuing as Senior Superintendent even after 14‑6‑1969 onward, and entitled to draw full pay etc. He has also prayed that he is also entitled to draw his pay in N. P. S. 14 from 1‑12‑1973 as there was no adverse entry in his confidential reports for the last four years prior to that.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in its order passed on 5‑1‑1982 in respect of application, dated 13‑12‑1981 of the appellant for the restoration of appeal No.119/1153 of 1981, advised the appellant to file fresh appeal because in law appeal No.119/1153 could not be restored. In compliance of the above mentioned order of the Tribunal the appellant has filed this appeal. In this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order of his reversion from the post of Senior Superintendent based on order dated 9‑6‑1969 and taking effect from 14‑6‑1969, was void and unlawful. It has also been contended by the appellant that while in service he was due to move in N.P.S. 14 from N.P.S. 13 on 1‑12‑1973 but he has been denied the same. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by appellant himself that he was working as Senior Superintendent when he was reverted on 9‑6‑1969 and his reversion was made effective w.e.f 14‑6‑1969. Though, he was transferred to Multan Region on his reversion from the post of Senior Superintendent but the same could not be effected for lack of vacancy and consequently the appellant was appointed as Senior Auditor w.e.f 3‑12‑1969 in a specially caused vacancy. As the post of Senior Auditor was equivalent to that of Senior Superintendent and thus under the circumstances explained above the appellant continued as Senior Superintendent even after 14‑6‑1969 and as such he was entitled for full pay in the scale of Senior Superintendent. The appellant prayed that keeping these facts in view the order of his reversion be held void and unlawful. Similarly, he argued that he was due to move over to N.P.S.14 from N.P.S.13 on 1‑12‑1973 but it was denied on the reasons that he had adverse entries in 1973. Actually confidential reports for the last four years viz. 1969 to 1972 were required to be scrutinized; as these were good, he should have been allowed to cross over to N.P.S. 14. Concluding his arguments he prayed that he may be declared for the entitlement of N.P.S.14 from 1‑12‑1973 which has been wrongly denied.

5. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department submitted that the appellant is asking for the relief against an order dated 9‑6‑1969 which had taken effect from 14‑6‑1969. This does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal, as per section 4(1) (c) no appeal lies to the Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority made at any time before the 1st July 1969. It was also pointed out by the learned District Attorney that as far as moving from N.P.S. 14 to N.P.S. 13 is concerned, if a reference is made, to rule 7 of the Punjab Non‑Gazetted Pay Revision Rules, 1972, the appellant is not entitled for the same. It was also argued by the learned District Attorney that if a reference is made to order No.90/EM/CCF Pb, dated 24‑4‑1982 of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore through which the appellant was not allowed to cross N.P.S. 14, is a detailed and comprehensive order which clearly mentions that in view of the adverse remarks written in two parts for the year 1973 i.e. 27‑2‑1973 to 13‑7‑1973 and 26‑7‑1973 to 31‑12‑1973, the appellant does not qualify and is not entitled to cross over to N.P.S.14.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. We are in agreement with the learned District Attorney that as per section 4(1) i (c) this Tribunal is not competent to hear first fact of this appeal as the order of his reversion was based on an order dated 9‑6‑1969 and had taken effect from 14‑6‑1969. As the Tribunal cannot hear the appeal against the order or decision of the department authority made at any time before 1st July 1969, hence, this is not within our jurisdiction to adjudicate this part of the appeal.

7. As far as allowing the appellant to cross over from N.P.S. 13 to N.P.S.14, we have perused the A.C.Rs of the appellant for the year 1973 written in two parts and have satisfied ourselves that these contain adverse remarks. Thus, we are in agreement with the order dated 24th April, 1982 of the Chief Conservator of Forests that the appellant could not be allowed to cross over N.P.S. 14 as he did not qualify for the same as per rules. Thus, we conclude that the order dated 24th April, 1982 withholding the crossing over of appellant from N.P.S. 13 to N.P.S. 14 is a valid and lawful order.

8. Keeping the above analysis in view, the appeal is dismissed and parties be informed accordingly.

There will be no order as to costs.

M.I.

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.