SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another vs RAJA
This petition is directed against the judgment dated 22-10-2002 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the service appeal of respondent No.1 against his relegation in the seniority list of Labour Officers (BS-16) was accepted. The core legal question concerns the determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotees, specifically whether civil servant seniority should be reckoned from the date of regular appointment. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was fully justified in accepting the appeal, as the respondent No.1 was appointed on a regular basis much earlier than the contesting respondents. The Court affirmed that under the governing statute, seniority of a civil servant must be reckoned from the date of regular appointment to the post, and departments cannot alter seniority merely because departmental quota posts were not filled on time. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- How is the seniority of a civil servant reckoned under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Does failure to fill departmental quota posts on time justify relegating a regularly appointed civil servant in the seniority list?
- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to rectify errors in a departmental seniority list?
- Section 7, Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---This petition is directed against judgment dated 22-10-2002, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby Appeal No,403 of 1995 of the respondent No,1 was accepted.
2. The respondent No,1 was appointed as a Labour Officer (BS-16), by selection through the Public Service Commission. The respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 were promoted as Labour Officers (BS-16) with effect from 1-12-1988 whereas the respondents Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7 were promoted as such with effect from 2-1-1995. However, in the seniority list of the Labour Officers, as circulated by the department, the respondents Nos.2 to 8 were shown senior to the respondent No,1. Therefore, the respondent No,1 preferred appeal No,403 of 1995 against relegation of his seniority position by the department vis-a-vis the respondents Nos.2 to 8. The appeal of the respondent No,1 was accepted by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 22-10-2002.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents Nos.2 to 8 had been rightly shown, in the seniority list, as senior to the respondent No,1 for the reason that the vacant posts of Labour Officers against the departmental quota could not be filled on time.
4. We have. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. Admittedly, the respondent No,1 was duly appointed as a Labour Officer (BS-16), on regular basis, much earlier than the respondents Nos.2 to 8. The provisions of section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, lay down that seniority of a civil servant shall be reckoned from the date of regular appointment to the post. Therefore, the Tribunal was quite justified in its approach to rectify an obvious error made by the departmental authorities in relegating the respondents No,1 to a junior position against all canons of justice and fair play. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.