PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus ABDUL AZIZ

This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 4‑10‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court. No.8, Bahawalpur, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted.

2. The facts are that the respondent was initially appointed as junior clerk on 26‑6‑1975. On 23‑8‑1978 he was promoted as steno‑typist and on 18‑6‑1979 he was further promoted as stenographer on ad hoc basis. On 26‑7‑1983 he was promoted on regular basis in NPS‑10. Thereafter, when the post of stenographer was placed in Grade No.15 he was given the said grade. He on 27‑7‑1987 brought a grievance petition for a direction that he be promoted as stenographer on regular basis with effect from 18‑6‑1979 when he was promoted on ad hoc basis.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the grievance notice and the grievance petition were time‑barred. The respondent had given two grievance notices firstly on 21‑3‑1985. This notice was replied vide letter Ex.P‑14 and the respondent was asked to wait as his case had been sent to the higher authorities. On 18‑6‑1987 he was informed that his request could not be acceded to. Thereafter, he sent another grievance notice on 27‑6‑1987 and brought the grievance petition on 27‑7‑1987. Copy of the grievance notice dated 27‑6‑1987 was not tendered in evidence and is Annexure‑D. Since finally the respondent was informed on 18‑6‑1987 that his request of being regularised as stenographer with effect from 18‑6‑1979 could not be accepted, cause of grievance arose to him on that date and the notice dated 27‑g‑1987, therefore, was within time. Since the grievance petition was brought after only one month of the service of grievance notice, it too was not time‑barred and the learned lower Court has rightly held that the grievance notice is within time.

4. However, the grievance petition of the respondent has been wrongly accepted on merits. Since the respondent was promoted only on ad hoc basis on 18‑6‑1979, he got no right against the said post. No doubt, the vacancy was permanent but since he was promoted only on ad hoc basis, he could not claim regularisation as of right from the date of the said promotion. If the respondent had been promoted temporarily, of course on the expiry of the period of probation of three months, he would have become permanent, but since it was not done, he did not get any right on the said post the mere fact that he was serving on the said post since 18‑6‑1979, was not sufficient. Even if for the sake of arguments it be said that the respondent got any right on the post of stenographer on w.e.f. 18‑6‑1979, his grievance notice and petition were time‑barred as he did not, bring any action for four long years after 17‑9‑1979 when probation ended. He thus, was rightly promoted on regular basis on 26‑7‑1983.

5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.

A.E.14721Lb.P Appeal accepted.