Find a Lawyer

Case No.432/1227 of 1984, decided on 12th January, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Limitation‑‑Seniority matter‑‑Seniority position same in repeated seniority lists issued from time to time‑‑Limitation, in circumstances, held, countable from first list and appeal filed on basis of last list not w hill limitation period counted from previous lists, held, was barred by limitation.

‑‑‑Seniority‑‑Ad hoc appointment period, could not be counted towards seniority‑‑Social Welfare Officer appointed on regular basis through Public Service Commission and seniority determined on basis of merit assigned by Commission‑Period of service of ad hoc appointment as Medical Social Welfare Officer in Health Department prior to regular appointment as Social Welfare Officer, held, rightly not treated towards seniority as Social Welfare Officer.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant. Malik Ghulam‑us‑Sayyadain, District Attorney for Respondent.

‑‑S.M. Hameed‑ud‑Din, Social Welfare Officer, D.G. Khan, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Social Welfare Zakat, Usher Department, Lahore and Mrs. Saleem Yasmin and forty others as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned seniority list notified vide letter dated 4‑4‑1984, Annexure 'H' in so far as it relegates the appellant in seniority via‑a‑via the contesting respondents Nos.2 to 37 may be set aside and respondent No.l be directed to count the appellant's seniority as Social Welfare Officer w.e.f. 1‑4‑1970.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant originally joined service as Medical Social Officer in the Health Department on 1‑4‑1970. His appointment was made by order of the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Health Department dated 4‑3‑1970. Subsequently he was transferred to the Social Welfare Department by order dated 21‑2‑1972. The Social Welfare Department referred the case of regularization of appellant's appointment to the Punjab Public Service Commission. Accordingly the appellant was informed by letter dated 11/17‑12‑1975, that the Commission could do so only after advertisement of the post. The appellant was directed by the Government vide letter dated 29‑6‑1976/17‑7‑1976, to apply to the Public Service Commission. Ultimately his appointment was regularized through the Public Service Commission. His letter of appointment was silent with regard to the date of regulariza tion. He made a representation dated 26‑6‑1978. that he had been working on regular basis since 1‑4‑1970, as his appointment was never designated as an ad hoc appointment and as such he was entitled to count seniority from 1‑4‑1970. As the appellant's seniority has been disturbed vide letter dated 4‑4‑1984, he has come before this Tribunal through the present appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant's appointment from the very beginning was not on ad hoc and that this was never extended further. He has relied on the case of Muhammad Ilyas Zaidi and Miss Jamila Khan decided by this Tribunal. It has been argued that it was a consistant practice of the Social Welfare Department that appointments are regularized from the date of original appointment. He has relied on the case of Wajahat Hussain and others v. Province of Punjab and others decided by this Tribunal in Appeal No.79/79/983 of 1981, decided on 14‑6‑1982. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that was clear case of discrimination and same may be removed.

6. On the other hand the stand of the Department through the learned Deputy District Attorney is that the appointment of the appellant was made with the approval of the ad hoc Selection Board and it was an ad hoc appointment. According to him, the function of the ad hoc Selection Board is to approve ad hoc appointments only. Regular appoint ments are made either by the Punjab Service Commission or the Regular Selection Board. He has resisted the claim of the appellant that he was regular employee of the Department. It has been further argued that the appellant once he was selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission, he was issued the offer of appointment by the Local Government, Social Welfare and Rural Development Department vide their Letter No.SOV(II) (SW)‑1/62‑74, dated 26‑10‑:976, and after accepting the terms and conditions so mentioned in the offer of appointment, his order of posting was issued on 18‑1‑1977. He has prayed that the appeal be dismissed, as appellant has no case.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant has been given seniority on the basis of merit assigned by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The tentative seniority list issued on 5‑6‑1978 by the Director‑General, Social Welfare, and the regular seniority lists issued on 1‑1‑1981 and 1‑1‑1983, were not challenged by the appellant. It means that the appellant was fully satisfied with the seniority given to him, earlier which has been repeated in the seniority list as on 1‑1‑1984, which was issued by the Administrative Secretary on 4‑4‑1984. In this manner the appeal of the appellant is barred by time because the seniority list issued on 1‑1‑1981 and 1‑1‑1983, remained unchallenged by toe appellant. I Even on merits, we are fully satisfied that the appellant was ad hoc A appointee with the approval of the ad hoc Selection Board and was never regularized till his case was taken up by the Punjab Public' Service Commission, when he appeared before the same and qualified his regular appointment. In this manner the regular appointment for the purpose will be counted from 6‑10‑1976, when he was approved by the Public Service Commission. We are of the considered opinion that the ad hoc period from 1‑4‑1970 to 5‑10‑1976, cannot be counted towards his seniority. Undoubtedly the Medical Social Officer, has been granted the benefit of their entire service but the seniority has been granted' to them from the date of approval by the Punjab Public Service Commission. Such like claim came before this Tribunal in the case of Wajahat Hussain and this Tribunal was pleased to reject the same.

8. In the light of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. 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.