MURATAB ALI Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, SARGODHA RANGE

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER) .‑Muratab Ali, Inspector of Police, Intelligence Bureau, Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the D. I.‑G. Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore, Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, S/103 S. H. O., P. S. Factory Area Faisalabad and Mr. Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, S/18, D. S. P. Traffic, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the orders of award of Special Grade to the contesting respondents may kindly be set aside and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to consider the appellant for the award of Special Grade of Sub‑Inspector on pro forma basis from the date from which his juniors were so promoted. He has also prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed that the case of appellant for award of pro forma promotion as D. S. P. may also be referred to the competent authority for consideration from the date from which respondent No. 4 (junior to appellant as Sub‑Inspector) was placed on List `G' and promoted as D. S. P.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as A. S.‑I. in the year 1960. He was promoted to List 'E' w. e. f. 13th June, 1963, promoted as Sub‑Inspector of Police from the same date. The appellant was confirmed as S. I., w. e. f. 1st May, 1970 and promoted to List 'F', w. e. f. 15th December, 1973 and promoted as Inspector of Police, w. e. f. 28th April, 1974. Though the appellant was regularly given all rank to rank and grade to grade promotions, yet his name was omitted in the matter of award of Special Grade, whereas, his juniors i.e. contesting respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were awarded Special Grade. According to the appellant he was ignored not on merits, for award of Special Grade, but due to omission and he has suffered in the matter of seniority vis‑a‑vis the con testing respondents and thus he was entitled to award of Special Grade, w. e. f. the date from which the contesting respondents were granted. The appel lant made a representation through proper channel to respondent No. 2, which was forwarded to the Joint Director. Intelligence Bureau, Government of Pakistan, Lahore by the Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau, Govern ment of Pakistan, Faisalabad, vide letter dated 24th January, 1981. The representation is still pending and has not been decided by the Departmental Authorities. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e. the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.

5. The legal objection has been raised by the learned District Attorney that there is no final order against which this appeal has been filed by the appellant and hence is not maintainable under section 4 (1) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

6. We have perused the record of this case so attached by the appellant alongwith his appeal and we find that the contention of the learned District Attorney is correct and the appellant is seeking remedy before this Tribunal without obtaining any final order from the Departmental Authorities. The appellant is, therefore, directed to first exhaust the remedy from the Depart mental Authorities and after obtaining the final order further seek the remedy from the Tribunal, if so desired.

7. The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.

There will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. M, Appeal dismissed.