MUHAMMAD AKBAR BHATTI Versus GENERAL MANAGER/PERSONNEL, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE

DECISION

This appeal from the order of the Labour Court arises in the following circumstances.

2. The appellant was appointed on 19‑11‑1959 as Apprentice Permanent Way Inspector and promoted as Permanent Way Inspector Grade‑I on 29‑11‑1966. In December, 1975 he was promoted as Permanent Way Inspector Grade‑II. His case in the petition was that in the Seniority List appearing in 1989 he was given seniority among Grade‑I Inspector instead of Grade II.

3. It appears that the appellant was involved in a theft case and in that connection remained suspended from December, 1982 to 1985. Eventually the case was not proceeded with against him and he resumed his work from December, 1985 till he proceeded on L.P.R. in January, 1991 and stood duly retired from 9‑2‑1992. The prayer in the petition was that he be granted fifty per cent of the pay which was denied to him during the suspension period and he be assigned seniority from the date of entry to the grade, i.e. from December, 1975.

4. The petition came to be resisted by the Department on a number of grounds which are not necessary to enumerate. The main contentions were that the petition was time‑barred, there was no grievance notice from the respondent and that the petitioner had not been cleared by the Departmental Promotion Committee in 1986. As such the promotion being of a temporary nature he could be any time reverted without notice.

5. The contention of the respondent prevailed and the petition was dismissed by the Labour Court.

6. I am of the opinion that there is no merits in the appeal for the following reasons.

7. Firstly that when the appellant had filed a writ petition before the High Court in 1985 he had himself claimed therein that he was a civil servant. This position is not denied and copy of the judgment of the High Court is on the record. He cannot therefore be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Mr. MA. Hassan, learned counsel for the appellant however has referred to the case of Akbar Ali and others v. Senior Administrative Officer, Pakistan Railways and another 1992 SCMR 1341, but that will be of no assistance as the duties and postings and functions were not examined. The contention that the objection in regard to the status of the appellant as a workman had not been specifically taken in the written reply will be neither here nor there.

8. Secondly on the admission of the appellant himself he had been pursuing his remedy after he had been reverted on 23‑11‑1986 after having failed to qualify by the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) and the 8 petition had been filed in 1989. All along he knew about his reversion once it had taken place and the publication of the seniority list in 1989 would not provide a fresh cause of action.

9. I will, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

A.A./2149/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.