1977 PLC(CS) 42

ORDER

SAAD SAOO0 JAN (CHAIRMAN) : The appellant in this appeal challenges the correctness of the seniority list dated 7‑3‑1973 issued by the Civil Defence Directorate wherein he has been shown junior to respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

2. The relevant particulars of the appellant's service are that he joined the Civil Defence directorate as A. R. P. Officer on 30‑7‑1948 in the scale of Re. 300‑25‑800. In the Budget for the next year the post of A. R. P. Officer was abolished and instead the post of Personal Assistant to Chief Officer, Civil Defence in the Scale of Rs. 250‑25‑7k0 was created. The appellant was appointed to this new post on 1‑10‑1948. This new post too was abolished with effect from 30‑4‑1951 and consequently the appellant's services were terminated. On 8‑1C‑1951 a post of A. R. P. Officer in the scale of Rs. 250‑25‑‑750 was recreated and the appellant was appointed thereto. Thus there was a gap in the service of the appellant during the period from 1‑5‑1951 and 7‑10‑1951. It may be mentioned that the re‑created post of A. R. P. Officer was in the senior grade.

3. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as ARPO/CDO with effect from 21‑1‑1949 and 6‑7‑1949 respectively, on a fixed salary of Rs. 300 per month. Their appointments were in the junior grade.

4. On 1‑3‑1952 the posts held by the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 were abolished and in their place new posts of ARPO/CDO in the scale of Re. 250‑25‑4C0 were created. The appellant and the said respondents were appointed to these clew posts on the same day, that is, on 1‑3‑1952.

5. The case of the appellant is that he should. be treated senior to respondents 3 and 4 as on 1‑3‑1952 he was holding a post in the senior grade while respondents 3 and 4 were holding appointments in the junior grade. Apart from that he was older in age to respondents 3 and 4.

6. Before we consider the contention of the appellant it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondents with regard to the competency of this appeal. It appears that the seniority list in this case was published on 28‑2‑1973 whereas the present appeal was filed on 12‑4‑1974. Under subsection (1) of section 8, Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance 1970 the appellant had 3 months within which he could impugn the seniority list before the Tribunal. This period in the case of the appellant expired in May, 1973. Thus the present appeal is hit by the law of limitation and prima facie the objection raised on behalf of the respondents is valid. However, we find that the appellant has made an application for the condo nation of the delay in filing his appeal. One of the reasons stated by him in not coming to the Tribunal within the prescribed time is that he had been pursuing his remedy before the competent authorities diligently and in a bona fide manner as he felt that the Government was the competent authority to redress his grievances. We have gone through the record and find that this explanation has considerable weight.

7. It may be mentioned that immediately after the publication of the seniority list the appellant made a representation which was accepted by the Director, Civil Defence who on 20‑4‑1973 issued another list, wherein the appellant was shown senior to respondents 3 and 4. Subsequently, the Director withdrew his list under the directions of the Provincial Government. The order withdrawing the list was made on 10‑11‑1973. At that time the appellant was posted as Principal in the Civil Defence Training School. This was on the basis of his seniority. he was therefore not affected by the order of the Director withdrawing the seniority list. In January 1974 he was reversed to his substantive appointment. On 8‑2‑1974 he made a representation to the Government in which he agitated against the impugned seniority list as well as his reversion. The Government did not reject his representation till March, 1974, and the order communicating rejection to 13im was received by him on 5‑4‑1974, as the post marks on the envelop indicate. He then filed the present appeal on 12‑4‑1974. In the circumssances we hold that the appellant has been diffidently pursuing his claim for seniority before the departmental authorities and as such sufficient cause has been'4 made out for condoning the delay in the institution of this appeal. We therefore allow his application for the condo nation of the delay.

8. It is not in dispute that on 1‑3‑1 955 when the posts of ARPOs/CDOs in the senior and junior grades were abolished and in their place new posts of ARPO/CDOs in one grade were .created, the appellant was in the senior grade while respondents 3 and 4 were in the junior grade. CoDse quently the appellant ought to have been regarded senior to respondents 3 and 4. The fact that respondents 3 and 4 had longer spans of continuous officiation as ARPO/CDO than the appellant is not material because the appellant was holding a superior appointment as compared with the said respondents. Even if we assume that the appointments of the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 to the newly created posts on 1‑3‑1952 constituted fresh recruitment then also the appellant must be declared senior to respondents 3 and 4 on the ground that he was older in age to them. There has been B since 1‑3‑1952 no material change in the service record of the appellant and respondents 3 and 4, which should make the appellant junior to the said respondents.

9. There is, however, another aspect of the matter as well. In 1960 a seniority list was issued In which the appellant was shown junior to respondent 3. There is evidence on record to the effect, that a copy of this list was duly received by the appellant. The appellant did not object to this seniority'' list. He asserted his claim for seniority over respondent 3 for the first Lim, in 1969 when another seniority list was issued. It will thus appear that the appellant kept quiet for 9 years and thus acquiesced in the position, which was assigned to him in the seniority list of 1960. We, therefore, do not think that we will be justified in upsetting the seniority of respondent No. 3 vis‑a‑vis the appellant.

10. For the reasons stated above we partly accept this appeal and direct that the impugned seniority list be so modified that the appellant is shown senior to respondent No. 4. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.