1986 PLC(CS) 630

The decision, dated 22‑10‑1985 recorded by learned Court No.4, Faisalabad has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the Appellant for his promotion to get Grade No.5 was dismissed.

2. The appellant initially was recruited as an apprentice. He completed the period of apprenticeship on 9‑4‑1974. His services were terminated on 21‑2‑1975 and vide order Exh.P.2 he was re‑instated. Thereafter a compromise was effected between the appellant and the management and vide order EXh. R.I he was to be given Grade No.4 Rs.175‑18‑283125‑583), with effect from 1‑4‑1980. So far as Abdul Wahad is concerned he was appointed as operator on 17‑7‑1975, vide order EXh. R. 11 in the time scale of Rs.175‑18‑283/25‑433. His salary was fixed at Rs.247. Since Abdul Wahad came in the grade 175‑18‑283/25‑433 earlier than the appellant he became senior. This is true that the grade of Abdul Wahad given in Exh.R.11 is as 175‑18‑283/25‑433 whereas vide compromise Exh.R.I the appellant was placed in grade 175‑18‑283/25‑583 but it may be that the grade was revised and thus it became 175‑18‑283125‑583 and as at the time Abdul Wahad entered this grade it was up to Rs.433, therefore, there appears to be a difference but actually the grade is the same. Since Abdul Wahad was senior he was rightly given next grade No.5 and the appellant cannot complete with him. He should wait for the next chance.

3. As a result of the observations made above the appeal is dismissed.

A.E.

Appeal dismissed.