Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.315(L) of 1984, decided on 29th June, 1986.

‑‑‑Promotion‑‑Civil servant promoted on ad hoc basis‑‑Entitlement to seniority‑‑Where order of promotion of civil servant was on ad hoc basis, mere fact that such civil servant was cleared by Selection Board, held, would not make his ad hoc promotion as regular‑‑Entitlement of seniority would not be available to civil servant where order of his promotion on ad hoc basis had stated that he would not be entitled to claim seniority and civil servant failed to challenge such order.

‑‑‑Promotion‑‑Entitlement‑‑Where civil servant was duly reverted from ad hoc promotion, fact that such civil servant continued as promotee due to suspension of reversion order by Labour Court and even after vacation of such order subsequently by Labour Court due to lack of jurisdiction, held, would not entitle civil servant to claim his seniority from date of his initial ad hoc promotion.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Seniority list, entitlement to‑‑ Re‑examination of reversion declined by Tribunal‑‑Where civil servant's claim of seniority stood decided by earlier order of Service Tribunal, such civil servant, held, could not claim re‑examination of same matter by Tribunal.

‑‑

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Civil servant promoted on ad hoc basis subsequently reverted‑ Right of civil servant to be considered for re‑promotion‑‑Where a civil servant had been reverted, he would be held entitled to be considered for re‑promotion on each date when subsequent promotion of his juniors had taken place‑‑If such civil servant's name had not been considered from a date his juniors have been promoted, establishment was bound to reconsider name of such left out civil servant for promotion on each date when his juniors were promoted‑‑Civil servant's appeal was accepted and his establishment was directed to reconsider his name for promotion.

Tufail Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant.

M . A . Shaida alongwith Departmental Representative for Respondents.

Respondents Nos. 4 to 15: Ex parte.

Date of hearing: 29th June, 1986.

‑‑The appellant joined as Assistant Accountant on 21‑1‑1960. He was promoted as Junior Audit Officer on 12‑10‑1971. This post corresponds to present B‑17. The appellant earned promotion to the post of Senior Audit Officer (B‑18) with effect from 9‑10‑1974, but this promotion was ad hoc expressly saying that the appellant shall have no right of seniority. Subsequently, another order was passed on 12‑8‑1976 whereby the appellant was regularly promoted as Senior Audit Officer (B‑18) and placed on probation for a period of one year. After the expiry of period of probation, however, he was reverted to the post of Junior Audit Officer by order dated 27‑8‑1978. This order was challenged by the appellant before the Laboul Court. That Court by order dated 16‑11‑1978 suspended the operation of the order dated 27‑6‑1978 and the appellant was allowed to serve as Senior Audit Officer. On 11‑11‑1979, however, the Labour Court rejected the appellant's petition for want of jurisdiction and also vacated the suspension order which it had passed on 16‑11‑1978. Despite the vacation of the suspension order, the appellant continued to work as Senior Audit Officer and drew the pay in scale of B‑18.

2. On 30‑4‑1984, the department without taking note of the appellant's reversion placed the appellant in the list of Senior Audit Officers (B‑18) showing the date of his promotion to that scale and post as 12‑8‑1976 on which date he was promoted on probation for one year.

3. It appears that on 25‑10‑1981, it came to the notice of the departmental authorities while examining the case of the appellant on reference as a result of the Labour Court's decision that the appellant ought to have been reverted in view of the cancellation of the order of suspension or reversion order passed by the Labour Court. An order was, therefore, passed on that date again reverting the appellant to the post of Junior Audit Officer retrospectively with effect from 27‑6‑1978, the date on which the original reversion had been ordered

4. On 13‑11‑1981, the case of the appellant for promotion was again considered and he was promoted as Senior Audit Officer (B‑18) with effect from 1‑2‑1981.

5. The order dated 25‑10‑1981 restoring the order of reversion dated 27‑6‑1978 was challenged by the appellant before this Tribunal in Appeal No. 48(P) of 1982. This appeal was, however, dismissed on 19‑2‑1983.

6. On 1‑12‑1981, another seniority list was prepared and the name of the appellant was shown at S.No. 9. This was challenged by the appellant departmentally on 18‑7‑1984 and having received no reply, the present appeal has been filed on 12‑11‑1984.

7. In appeal before us, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contended that the order dated 9‑10‑1974 whereby the appellant was shown to have been promoted on ad hoc basis was defective, inasmuch as, the appellant had been duly cleared by the Selection Board that this was a regular promotion and he was entitled to count his seniority from that date. We are afraid, there is no substance in this contention. The order clearly says that the promotion was on ad hoc basis. The mere fact that the appellant was cleared by the Selection Board would not make the promotion regular. It is pertinent to note that the order explained the status of the appellant as ad hoc employee and further provided that he shall not be entitled to claim seniority. If the appellant was aggrieved by this order, he should have challenged it at that time, but he did not do so and also when the order of his regular promotion dated 12‑8‑1976 was passed, he did not claim that his promotion should be counted from 9‑10‑1974. In these circumstances, the appellants belated claim of seniority from 9‑10‑1974 cannot be entertained specially when it was never departmentally challenged and the time had run against him.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that since as a result of the order of the Labour Court, the order of his reversion dated 27‑6‑1978 had been suspended and that since he was never physically demoted from the higher to the lower post and also got the pay of B‑18 continuously, he should be deemed to have been promoted with effect from 27‑6‑1978 and not from any later date. In this contention also, we find no substance. The order dated 27‑6‑1978 had duly been passed. It was suspended by the Labour Court but finally the petition was dismissed by the Labour Court and the suspension order did not remain in force. The mere fact that the appellant had worked in B‑18 despite the dismissal of his petition would not alter the position. On this basis, therefore, the appellant cannot claim his seniority with effect from 12‑8‑1976.

9. The appellant's claim stood decided by the Tribunal in appeal No.48(P) of 1982 when his prayer that order dated 25‑10‑1981 restoring the order of reversion dated 27‑6‑1978 was illegal, had been rejected. He cannot claim re‑examination of the question because the Tribunal had once rejected his claim. On this ground, therefore, we are firmly of the view that the appellant cannot claim cancellation of the order of his reversion and his emplacement in the seniority list with effect from 27‑6‑1978 when he was promoted on probation.

10. Though the appellant has not claimed so, nevertheless, we are of the view that the appellant had been reverted on 27‑6‑1978, he was entitled to be considered for re‑promotion on each date when subsequent promotions of his juniors had taken place. If his name had not been considered from a date after 27‑6‑1978 and his juniors have been promoted, then the department is bound to reconsider the name of the appellant for promotion on each date when his juniors were promoted to B‑18, and we direct accordingly.

11. The appeal is accepted to the extent indicated above. Parties to be informed accordingly.

12. This order is ex parte against respondents 4 to 15, who are absent despite service.

A. A . 352/ Lb / S

Find a Lawyer Near You

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