Find a Lawyer

Case No. 550/2026 of 1982.

‑‑‑R. 9(3)‑‑Punjab Public Service Commission Policy Decision No. 53‑ Seniority‑‑Promotees‑‑Tehsildars promotees to post of Extra Assistant Commissioner‑‑'A' promoted on ad hoc basis on 14‑12‑1972 but taking over charge on 26‑1‑1973 subsequently regularised from 26‑1‑1973‑‑Held cannot claim benefit of R.9(3) for being placed with promotees of calendar year 1972 and being declared senior to direct recruits of 1972‑‑Seniority of 'A', in circumstances, held, to count from date of actual appointment to higher post.

Muhammad Hussain for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun for Respondents.

‑‑Khalid Bashir Tarar, Assistant Commissioner, Attock, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary (Services), Services General Administration and Information Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and Messrs Qazi Javed Ahmad and 37 others as per list attached as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned seniority list as well as impugned order, dated 21/26‑7‑1982 be set aside and the name of the appellant be ordered to be placed at serial No. 102 instead of serial No. 140.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was recruited as Tehsildar, on 1‑10‑1962, and on the basis of seniority and fitness was promoted as E.A.C., vide Notification, dated 14‑12‑1972, therefore, his case would be governed under rule 9(3) of the P.C.S. (EB) Rules, 1964. According to the learned counsel the said rules envisage that promotee could always be declared senior to the direct recruits appointed during the same calendar year. Learned counsel vehemently argued that according to the said rules and dictum as laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the seniority of the appellant must have been fixed from the date of appointment order, dated 14‑12‑1972 by which group of 7 officers was promoted, therefore, according to the said rules the appellant should have been shown senior to them.

5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Services, General Administration and Information Department through Syed Muhammad Hamid, Deputy Secretary (A), and has also relied on the advice of the Regulation Wing of the Services, General Administration and Information Department, placed on the record as Annexure 'A' in reply to the Memo of Appeal so filed by the appellant. It has been submitted on his behalf that the appellant has no case whatsoever as he took over charge as E.A.C. on ad hoc basis, on 26‑1‑1973 and later on his ad hoc appointment was regularised, therefore, he could not fall within the purview of the Rules so quoted by the appellant in his appeal. It has been further submitted that according to the policy decision 53 of Punjab Public Service Commission, the date of appointment would be the crucial date in such matters and not the date on which he was notified.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that the appellant was promoted on ad hoc basis, on 26‑1‑1973, to the post which was later on regularised from the said date, whereas the contesting respondents so impleaded by him in this appeal stood promoted and regularised in the year 1972. In this manner the cover taken by the appellant under rule 9(3) of the P.C.S. (EB) Rules, 1964, is impracticable as the calendar year for the contesting respondents would be 1972 whereas the calendar year for the appellant's appointment would be 1973, this has not been denied by the appellant while arguing his case before this Tribunal. Moreover, we find that the stand taken by the respondents is legitimate as the Regulation Wing of the S . G . A . & I Department has clarified this position very vividly. According to the advice of the Regulation Wing, the appellant was promoted on ad hoc basis vide order, dated 14‑12‑1972 but he took over the charge of E.A.C., on 26‑1‑1973 and his ad hoc promotion was regularised by the Governor of Punjab w.e.f. 26‑1‑1973, therefore, it was very clear that policy decision No. 53 of the Public Service Commission would come into play and the appellant could only be considered for seniority from the date of actual appointment to the higher post.

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