QURBAN ALI Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION
ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑ Mr. Qurban Ali, Secretary, Town Committee, Aminabad, District Gujranwala and Mir Allah Rakha, Secretary, Town Committee, Kot Radha Kishan, District Kasur, have filed their appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and have impleaded Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Lahore, as Respondents.
2. By virtue of their appeals they have prayed that the impugned order dated 29th January, 1980 be set aside and the appellants be allowed Grade in N. P. S. 11 together with arrears of pay, since 29th January, 1980.
3. The appellants have been aggrieved of the same impugned order, thus, cases being identical and are being dealt within the same judgment.
4. Brief history of the case is that the appellants were working in N. P. S. 8 ; but in pursuance of Government orders contained in their circular letter No. L. C. S. (Account Miscellaneous) 2 (20)/77‑P‑II dated 15th October, 1978, the Secretaries and Accountants in N. Y. S. 8 working in various Municipal Committees in Lahore Division were awarded N. P. S. 11, Personal to them, because Octroi Superintendents working in these Municipal Committees were given N. P. S. 11. Thus, Qurban Ali, Secretary Municipal Committee, Shakargarh, Appellant I, was transferred and posted as Secretary, Municipal Committee, Chunian and Mir Allah Rakha, Secretary, Municipal Committee, Bhai Pheru, appellant 11 was allowed to continue at Bhai Pheru, but both these appellants were given N. P. S. 11, Personal to them, keeping in view the reasons given in the Government circular referred to above. Later on, Qurban Ali appellant I was transferred on his own written request from Chunian to Town Committee, Eminabad but was allowed N. P. S. 8, his original grade, instead of N. P. S. 11 (Personal). Similarly, Mir Allah Rakha, appellant 11 was transferred to Bagowala as Secretary of this Town Committee in N. P. S. 8, his original grade, because his work at Bhai Bheru was found unsatisfactory.. Both the appellants made an appeal before the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department on the plea that they were senior most in the District when N. P. S. 11 was given to them. They were entitled to this grade even when they stood transferred to another Municipal/Town Committees. Thus, N. P. S. 11, given once to them, cannot be withdrawn. In case of Qurban Ali, appellant 1, an appeal was submitted to respondent No. 2 on 13th March, 1980 as there was no response even on expiry of 90 days, hence this appeal. In case of appellant No. 2, wherein respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 1 vide his letter dated 23rd November, 1980 as follows:‑----
"The matter may, therefore, be re‑examined and his request be consi dered for posting, if his seniority justifies, at a place where he can continue to draw the benefit of Personal N. P. S. 11."
As no further decision has been taken by the Respondent No. 2, hence their appeals.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants were senior most in N. P. S. 8 when they were given N. P. S. 11. Once N. P. S. I 1 was given to them, it cannot be taken back from them as per law settled in so many cases. Thus, the impugned order is unlawful and unjustified. He further argued that this impugned order is also in viola tion of section 16 of the Civil Servants Act, 1975. Therefore, in accordance with the said section, the appellants who were enjoying grade N. P. S. 11 are entitled for the same and the respondent was not competent to with draw it. Thus, he concluded the impugned order is repeated with mala fides in law and be second on these grounds. The learned District Attorney on the other hand, controverted these arguments, by saying that both the appeals are time‑barred. He has submitted that in case of Qurban Ali the impugned order by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore was passed on 29th January, 1980 and the appellant filed a representation against the said order on 3rd February, 1980 which was rejected by the Director, Local Government on 19th February, 1980. The second represen tation dated 13th March, 1980 filed by the appellant with the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department was not justified in view of section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act which provides only our right of representation and that repeated representations do not enlarge the time for limitation for filing an appeal which according to him had started to run against the appellant from 19th February, 1980. He has concluded that the appeal had been filed on 12th July, 1980 is barred by time as the limitation had expired on 19th March, 1980. Similarly, in case of Mir Allah Rakha, appellant 11, Annexure `A‑5' with his appeal shows that respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 1 to re‑examine the matter on 23rd November, 1980. There were no response. Further the appellant was required to appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days after the expiry of 90 days i. e. between 23rd February, 1981 but this appellant has submitted his appeal on 1st October, 1981 which is time‑barred by more than six months. He has also failed to show sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay. The learned District Attorney submitted that these appeals are time‑barred and not maintainable. He further argued as per merits, these appeals are also not sustainable. It is clear from their posting orders that they were given N. P. S. 11, as a Personal to them for performing of their duties as Secretaries for Municipal Committees, Chunian and Bhai Pheru, respectively only and under special circumstances because the Octroi Superintendents working under them in these Munici pal Committees were given N. P. S. 11. Thus, they were entitled to N. P. S. 11 (Personal) only for the time they were perform their duties in these Municipal Committees. When they were transferred out of these Municipal Committees, they forfeited their right for N. P. S. 11; and they had to be given their original grade of N. S. P.‑8. The learned District. Attorney concluded that the appellants have been now placed correctly in their respective grades of N. P. S.‑8 and no injustice has been done to them.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments put forward by the appellant's counsel, the learned District Attorney and also have perused the record very carefully. We agree with the arguments of the learned District Attorney that the appeals of both the appellants are time barred and are not maintainable. Also on the merits, they could get N. P. S. 11, Personal to them, only as long as they would work as Secre taries of the Municipal Committees, Chunian and Bhai Pheru, respectively as per terms and conditions of their posting order issued vide No. A‑VI 276/C/893‑717, dated 27th January, 1979. As soon as they stood trans ferred out of these Municipal Committees, they were not entitled to N. P. S. 11 (Personal) given to them. We are also conscious of the fact that appellant No. 1 was transferred at his own request and appellant No. 2 transferred as his work was found unsatisfactory.
6. The result is we proceed to dismiss the appeals of Messrs Qurban Ali and Mir Allah Rakha, appellants, as being without any merits as well as non maintainable and hopelessly time‑barred.
However, there will be no order as to posts.
M.I. Both appeals dismissed.