Find a Lawyer

Case No. 510/520 of 1983, decided on 16th August, 1984.

‑‑S. 4‑‑Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.6‑ Police employee‑‑Plea of wrong fixation of seniority‑‑Limitation for filing of appeal, determination of‑‑Knowledge of non‑admission to list 'F' could be attributed to appellant when such list was circulated by circular‑ Appellant filing objection to non‑inclusion of his name in said list‑ Objection duly considered by Authority‑and rejected‑‑Appeal filed within 30 days of rejection of objections, held, would be within time.

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.6‑‑Term "may wait" used in orders relating to promotion/seniority of employee, held, would not mean "suppression"‑‑Such case would be of deferment.

Syed Aftab Ijaz v. D.I.‑G., Lahore Range and 76 others 1984 PLC (C.S.) 106 rel.

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.6‑ Appellate jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Since appellant's case was only deferred by Authority with regard to his promotion /seniority and appeal by such employee being within time, Service Tribunal after considering material on record directed Authority that appellant be deemed to be admitted to list 'F' from specific date, from which his juniors were so admitted‑‑Impugned list of seniority was set aside by Service Tribunal with direction that appellant would remain senior to respondents and that seniority list be so amended.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for the Appellant. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for the Respondents.

‑‑Jehan Khan, Inspector of Police No. M/6, Special Branch, Rawalpindi has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, Mr. Abdul Hameed Tahir, Inspector Police No. M/161, Mr. Mushtaq Hussain, Inspector Police No. M/169, Mr. Iftikhar Hussain InBDector Police/ S.H.O.,P. S. Gulberg, Lahore and contesting respondents Nos. 5 to 68 (as per list at Annexure 'A') as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned seniority list dated 6‑5‑1982 be set aside and the appellant be declared senior to all the contesting respondents. It has also been prayed that the appellant be declared to have been promoted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30‑12‑1975 or alternatively respondents Nos.l and 2 be directed to improve the appellant's date of promotion to 30‑12‑1975.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined Police Department on 1‑9‑1966 as temporary A.S.I. He was confirmed in the rank of A.S.I. on 18‑5‑1971. His name was admitted to List 'E' w.e.f 28‑5‑1971 and promoted to the rank of officiating S.I. w.8.f. 12‑11‑1970. He was confirmed in the rank of S.I. w.e.f. 1‑6‑1973. He was also considered for list 'F' on 27‑12‑1975, but was not found fit by the authority for admission of his name of List 'F' and the Authority observed as under:‑

"May wait"

However, later on the appellant was admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 11‑11‑1976. The appellant represented vide his representation dated 9‑6‑1982, requesting for improvement of his seniority from the same date from which his juniors were so admitted to list 'F' i.e.:, 30‑12‑1975 which was rejected by Inspector‑General of Police vide his order dated 20‑9‑1983. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e. Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, learned District Attorney assisted with the help of the representative of Department on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the seniority and confirmation as A.S.I. of the appellant was disturbed. Whereas respondent No.2 was enrolled as A.S.I. from the same date on which the appellant was enrolled. The other two respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were enrolled later on. However, somehow or the other these respondents were confirmed as A.S.Is. and then as Sub‑Inspectors from early dates with the result the appellant was placed junior to them. His representation was duly accepted by the D.I.‑G. Multan Range, and his seniority as A.S.I. and as Sub‑Inspector was restored and he was confirmed in both these ranks from the dates from which his above juniors were so confirmed but this was done on 20‑10‑1975. In the meanwhile the names of the contesting respondents were recommended for admission to list 'F' and they were admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30‑12‑1975. However, appellant's case was delayed due to final decision about his seniority as A . S. I . and S.I. as mentioned above. It has further, been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.l issued seniority list of Officiating Inspectors of Police as it stood on 25‑2‑1982 and circulated this vide circular dated 6‑5‑1982. On this the appellant, came to know that his juniors have been admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30‑12‑1975 while he was brought on list 'F' by respondent No.l w.e.f. 11‑11‑1976. Thus, the appellant submitted his representation dated 9‑6‑1982 for bringing his name on list 'F' from the same date i.e. 30‑12‑1975, the date on which his juniors were brought as such. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the appellant's seniority as A.S.I. and S.I. has been restored from the due dated via‑a‑via his juniors, hence there was every justification for admitting him to list 'F' on the same date from which his juniors were so admitted so that he should not suffer due to wrong fixation of his seniority which was ultimately rectified by the Department. However, the Departmental Authorities has not paid any heed to the request of the appellant and his date of admission to list 'F' has not been corrected which is still being taken as 11‑11‑1976 instead of 31‑12‑1975. It has been prayed by the appellant's counsel that the respondents be directed to admit the appellant to list 'F' from the same date from which his juniors were so admitted with consequential benefits of seniority over these contesting respondents.

6. The learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant relying on the para-wise comments submitted by the respondents. A preliminary objection has also been taken by him that the appeal is time barred as that the contesting respondents were admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30‑12‑1975 vide order of the Inspector‑General of Police dated. 30th December, 1975, whereas the appellant submitted his representation on 9‑6‑1982. Thus, the appeal is time barred for years together and be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the name of the appellant was duly considered alongwith his juniors on 27‑12‑1975 and the competent authority ignored him by passing order mentioning as "May wait". He has argued that by this order, the appellant was considered for promotion and superseded. Thus, there is no force in the arguments of the appellant's counsel that the appellant should be brought on list 'F' from 30‑12‑1975, the date from which contesting respondents were so brought. In this way as the appellant was, previously superseded, hence he has been rightly admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 11‑11‑1976 and has been correctly placed in the impugned seniority list from the due date. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, resisted the above plea of the learned District Attorney by submitting that the orders "May wait" do not imply the super-session of the appellant, but on the contrary, his case was deferred and when the appellant was admitted to list 'F' after a few months, he regained his seniority and his admission to list 'F' is automatically to be taken from the same date from his juniors were so admitted. He has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in case of Syed Aftab Ijaz v. D.I.‑G., Lahore Range and 76 others, reported as 1984 P L C (C. S.) 1068. In that case also Syed Aftab Ijaz was not in the first instance placed on list 'F' by passing the same observations "to wait". In that context the said remarks "to wait" came up‑ for interpretation before us and it was held by this Tribunal that it did not mean "super-session" but it only went "deferment". The appellant's counsel has referred to para. 7 of the said judgment. He has also relied on Amanullah v. I.‑G. Police and 305 others Case No. 569/503 of 1983, decided by this Tribunal on 3‑6‑1984, wherein it was held that if basic seniority is restored then material benefit of restoration of seniority in the form of promotion to higher grade cannot be denied.

8. As far as objection of the learned District Attorney regarding the appeal being time barred is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.l issued seniority list on 25‑2‑1982, wherein the objections were invited from all concerned. Therefore, the appellant also filed his objections. His representation was duly considered by the competent authority i. e. I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore who rejected it vide his order dated 20‑9‑1983. On this the appellant filed the present appeal on 15‑10‑1983 i.e. within 30 days. Therefore, his appeal is within prescribed time limit. As far as promotion order passed by Inspector‑General of Police on 30‑12‑1975 in respect of other respondent is concerned, this order makes it clear that this was never endorsed and conveyed to the appellant. Thus, reliance of the learned District Attorney on this order is misconceived and is not tenable.

9. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have consulted the record of this case very carefully.

10. As far as the objection of the learned District Attorney regarding the time limit of the case is concerned we have perused the order dated 3P‑12‑1975 of the Inspector‑General of Police produced by the learned District Attorney (put on record as Annexure 'C/1') which makes it clear that this order was not endorsed /conveyed to the appellant as this order, was meant for admission to list 'F' for the contesting respondents and not for the appellant. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that it came to the appellants notice only when the seniority list of Officiating Inspectors‑ was circulated by circular dated 6‑5‑1982 of I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore. On this, the appellant filed his objections which were duly considered by the competent authority (I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore) and rejected by his final order dated 20‑9‑1983. The present appeal has been filed by the. appellant on 15‑10‑1983 that is within the time limit of 30 days of the impugned order. Keeping in view the above facts of the case we ,hold that the objection of the learned District Attorney regarding time limit is uncalled' for and is not sustainable.

11. We have also examined this case on merits keeping in view our earlier judgments. The respondents have taken a stand in the para-wise comments that the appellant was considered alongwith contesting respondents but he was not found fit by the authority for admission of his name to the list 'F', as the authority observed as under:‑‑

"May wait

At the time of arguing this case, the learned District Attorney and the respondents have taken a stand that thus the appellant stood superseded, through the above observations of the authority and he could not be brought to list 'F' from 30‑12‑1975, the date from which the contesting respondents were brought as such. We are afraid this inetrpretation of the respondents for the word "may wait" is not convincing and acceptable keeping in view the judgment of this Tribunal in case of Syed Aftab Ijaz v. D.I.‑G. Police. Lahore Range and 76 others. Para 7 of this judgment, reported as 1984 P L C (C.S.) 1068 is reproduced below:‑

"7. We have carefully examined the language used by the Additional I.‑G.P. in order to decide whether this was an of super-session of the appellant was deferred to gain some experience. In this connection, we will emphasize on the observation already underlined by us "To Wait". The word 'to wait', would mean that he was not superseded and his superiors needed more time to make up their minds whether to clear him for promotion or not. If they had decided to supersede the appellant, there was no bar for them to say in unequivocal term, that the appellant was unfit for promotion. The substitution of word "to wait" for the conventional phrase "unfit for promotion" leads to resistable conclusion that the case of the appellant was a case of being deferred and not a case of super-session. It will not be out of place to mention that according to the Police Rule 13.14(3) the minimum experience for promotion to List 'F' would be 8 years in all including 5 years as upper subordinate. We have consulted the record and have satisfied ourselves that the appellant did fulfil this minimum requirement for promotion to List 'F'. We also cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the Additional I.‑G.P. did concede that he was reported to be honest and his record on the whole was slightly above average. The only impediment in his way according to the said I.‑G.P. was lack of experience which is not supported by the service record of the appellant. The experience means the experience as required under the rules and not according to the personal opinion of the Additional I.‑G.P. We are fortified in our observation in this respect as the rules clearly fix certain requirements of service and experience and do not allow the superiors of a civil servant to create a yardstick of their own in violation of the said mandatory provisions. In this respect we further rely on a case of Ashfaq Ahmad v. I.‑G.P. and 2‑34 contesting respondents which we decided on 9/81 and which also became in subject of appeal before their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In the said case Ashfaq Ahmad was ignored for promotion to List 'F' vide Additional I.‑G.P. order, dated 24th November, 1973 in which it was stated that he needed more ground in experience in execution of work before he can be considered for higher responsibilities. It was also observed in similar manner that on the whole Ashfaq Ahmad possessed slightly above average record and the word used was "wait". This Tribunal held that this sort of observation was in violation of rule 13.14 (3) of the Police Rules, therefore, it decided to set aside the above order and directed that the said Ashfaq Ahmad would be deemed to have been admitted in List 'F' w.e.f. 15th December, 1973, the date when his juniors were so promoted. The Government chose to file an appeal against the decision of this Tribunal which came before their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Their Lordships upheld the decision of this Tribunal holding that due weight was not given as it was so required under rule 13.14(3) and in this manner this would be a case of indiscrimination, qua the respondent in the said case."

Keeping in view the above judgment delivered by this Tribunal we reiterate our views that the orders "May wait" did not mean the "super-session" of the appellant and it was a case of deferment. Again by allowing him admission to list 'F' w.e.f. 11‑11‑1976 does not debar him for claiming /entitlement for bringing him on list 'F' from 30‑12‑1975, the date from which his juniors were so admitted. We also find force in B the contention of the appellant's counsel that when his basic seniority in these ranks of A.S.I. and S.I. via‑a‑via his juniors was ultimately restored by the respondents, then, he was entitled to the benefit of the restoration of seniority and admission to list 'F' from the date from which his juniors were so admitted. This point was considered by this Tribunal in the above‑mentioned case of Aman Ullah Khan Inspector in which a similar situation arose and it was held by us as follows:‑

(Case No. 569/503 of 1983, decided on 3‑6‑1984. Para. 9 last lines. ) .

"In the case of present appellant also although his basic seniority as Sub‑Inspector had been restored yet the material benefit of restoration of seniority has been denied to him in the form of promotion, which he would have achieved had he not been falsely involved in the aforesaid criminal case."

12. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal of the appellant is accepted and he is deemed to be admitted to list 'F' w.e.f. 30‑12‑1975, the date from which his juniors were so admitted. I We set aside the impugned seniority list dated 6‑5‑1982 in so far as it relates to the appellant and the contesting respondents. Thus, the appellant shall remain senior to the contesting respondents.

There are no orders as to costs.

A.A Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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