NAZAR AHMAD Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE , S. Abul Aasim Jafferi, Ejaz Ahmad Khan & Nemo

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑ These are two appeals by special leave from the judgment dated 11‑7‑1988 of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby service appeals preferred by the appellants in a matter affecting their seniority were dismissed.

2. The appellants joined service under the Thal Development Authority prior to 1957 which was an autonomous body. With effect from 1‑6‑1957 the functions of the authority were transferred to the Thal Project Colony which was directly managed by the Provincial Government. Thus, the appellants became employees of the Provincial Government with effect from the said date. Their services were placed under the administrative control of the Colonization Officer. The appellant in Civil Appeal No.979 of 1990 was appointed as a senior clerk in the office of the Thal Project Colony. He was promoted as Assistant on 8‑6‑1961. Later he was confirmed as Assistant from the same date. The appellant in Civil Appeal No.978 of 1990 was appointed as Assistant in the office of the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Leiah, was confirmed as such with effect from 17‑2‑1962.

3. By an order dated 7‑1‑1970 the Thal Project Colony was wound up and all the revenue estates alongwith the staff were transferred to the District Administration. The appellants in the two appeals were allocated to Multan Division. They were posted in the office of the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Leiah. Later they were transferred to Sargodha Division. Both were appointed on the establishments of the Deputy Commissioners.

4. On 30‑5‑1979 Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh, sought advice from the Board of Revenue with regard to the manner for the determination of the seniority of the staff formerly posted in the office of the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer on transfer to the District establishments. The Board of Revenue returned the following reply:‑‑

"The matter has been considered and it has been decided that the seniority of the staff of EA.C.O: s Office merged in the district office Muzaffargarh, Mianwali and Sargodha may be determined from the date of continuous service in‑their cadre as the staff has been merged alongwith the posts. The colony staff is not a surplus staff. They cannot be treated as new comers." to accordance with the decision incorporated in this letter the seniorities of the appellants were fixed in the establishment of the district in which they were employed. On the basis of the positions assigned to them in the seniority lists they were promoted as superintendents in the offices of the Deputy Commissioners, Khushab and Jhang with effect from 13/14‑1‑1982.

6. The Commissioners Multan and Sargodha Divisions were not satisfied with the decision contained in the above memorandum of the Board of Revenue: They took up the matter with the Board pointing out the objections to which the said decision was open. The Board found merit in the objections and by another memorandum dated 23‑7‑1984 it reversed the said decision and instead decided:‑‑

"The Board of Revenue Punjab while taking it (sic) very intricate problem had to take up the matter with the Government in the Services General Administration and Information Department for obtaining legal/concrete views. The said Department has viewed that colony staff merged in the District Offices may be considered as new entrants in the District Establishment for the purpose of seniority on the precedent of the staff of Thai Development Authority merged in the office of Board of Revenue Punjab after its dissolution on 29‑4‑1971 with same benefits of services."

With this new decision of the Board the appellants became liable to reversion to make room for those who now became senior to them. To avoid reversions they filed representations before the Board but these were rejected. They then filed appeals before the Service Tribunal but without any success. They have now come in appeal to this Court.

7. In the order granting leave to appeal the following contention of the appellants was noted:

"In support of these petitions it is contended that so far as the p Province of Punjab is concerned, the seniority is a vested right. They had already been promoted in accordance with the rule of seniority earlier laid down by the Board by its memorandum of 30‑5‑1979 and the Board was not competent to prescribe a new rule which adversely affected them or to give to it a retrospective effect."

8. It is to be noticed that the appellants joined Government service for the first time on 1‑6‑1957 when their services were taken over directly by the Government in connection with the Thai Project Colony. Subsequently, they were transferred alongwith their posts to the establishment of the Deputy Commissioners. Under rule 5, the West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Services Rules, three methods of recruitment to service have been prescribed depending upon the nature of the appointment, that is, initial recruitment, promotion and transfer. The manner in which the appellants had been brought on the establishment of the Deputy Commissioners did not at first sight appear to fall into any of these categories, for they were already holding the posts which were made part of the District establishment. However, they could be assimilated with persons appointed by transfer from one cadre to another. In any event they could hardly be regarded as persons appointed by way of initial recruitment.

9. Rule 9(1)(b) of the West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Services Rules, 1964, governs the seniority of persons who are appointed to cadre otherwise than by initial recruitment. It reads as follows:‑‑

"(b) in the case of members appointed otherwise with reference to the dates of their continuous appointment therein; provided that if the date of continuous appointment in the case of two or more members of the service is the same, the older official if not junior to the younger official or officials in the next below grade, shall rank senior to the younger official or officials.

We see no reason why the seniority of the appellant should not be regulated by this rule. The earlier direction of the Board of Revenue made on 30-5-1979 was on accord with this rule. It is not disputed before us that if this rules is given effect the appellants would continue to retain their position on the seniority list which they occupied before the Board changed its earlier decision. In the circumstances we set aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal and direct that the seniority of the appellants should be determined on the basis of the direction given by the Board of Revenue on its letter of 30-5-1979. There will be no order as to costs.

A.A./N-325/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.