Sh. SARFRAZ AHMAD Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, IRRIGATION & POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE

ORDER

1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).‑ In this appeal by Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad, Superintending Engineer, under section 4 of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1969, he claims seniority over Mr. M: A. Qureshi, Chief Engineer and Mr. Iftikhar Ali Qureshi, Chief Engineer, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the rank of Superintending Engineer. We may mention that we have dismissed the appeal of Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad for fixation of his seniority above Mr. M. A. Qureshi, respondents in Case No. 502/195 of 1970, on the ground that Mr. M. A. Qureshi was senior to him in Class I (Junior) and as such bad to rank senior to the appellant as Executive Engineer when they were confirmed as Executive Engineers on the same day.

2. The service particulars of the appellant are these:‑

3. He joined as Temporary Engineer on 10‑7‑1944, was appointed to Class II as Assistant Engineer on 6‑7‑1949, was promoted to Class I (Junior) as Assistant Executive Engineer on 1‑2‑1954, and became officiating Executive Engineer on 9-10‑1949. He was confirmed as Executive Engineer from 30‑6‑1654, and was promoted as officiating Superintending Engineer on 12‑10‑1954.

4. Mr. M. A. Qureshi, respondent No. 2, was recruited as Assistant Engineer in Class II on 8‑1‑1947 and was promoted to Class I (Junior) on 23‑8‑1950. Thus Mr. Qureshi ranks senior to the appellant in Class I (Junior) by nearly 2 years and 6 months, as Mr. Qureshi began to officiate as Executive Engineer on 8‑8‑1952. He was confirmed from 30-6‑1954. The date of confirmation of Mr. M. A. Qureshi and the appellant being the same, their seniority in the rank of Executive Engineer had to be determined by the seniority in the next, below grade of Assistant Executive Engineer by which Mr. Qureshi is bound rank senior to the appellant. Though Mr. Qureshi began to officiate as Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 27‑6‑1958, nearly 4 years later than the appellant, he has been assigned the date of appointment as 12‑10‑54 by notification dated 25‑6‑1970. He has even been confirmed as Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 1‑5‑1962. Thus his date of officiation as Superintending Engineer is the same as that of the appellant, but he is entitled to rank senior to the appellant as Superintending Engineer because of his basic seniority in Class I (Junior) and as Executive Engineer as already mentioned.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contends that as the appellant began to actually officiate as Superintending Engineer on 12‑10‑1954, while Mr. Qureshi began to officiate on 27‑6‑1958, the former is senior to the latter and the pro forma date of promotion assigned to Mr. Qureshi should be ignored, We are unable to accede to this argument, as the Government has the undoubted power to assign the date of confirmation and appointment retrospectively, as held by our Supreme Court B in P L D 1962 S C 367 at p. 369. Therefore, we hold that there is no force in the claim of the appellant to seniority over Mr. M. A. Qureshi.

6. Mr. Iftikhar, Ali Qureshi, respondent No. 3 was recruited as Temporary Executive Engineer in the former Bahawulpur State on 12‑6‑51, and became an officiating Executive Engineer from the same date. He was promoted to, and confirmed in, Class I (Senior) w.e.f. 1‑3‑1954. He began to officiate as Superintending Engineer from 19‑4‑58 and has been confirmed w.e.f. 14‑9‑1965.

7. By comparing the particulars of the appellant vis‑a‑vis Mr. Iftikhar Ali Qureshi, it transpires that the latter was taken as Executive Engineer earlier than the appellant and, therefore, is entitled to rank senior to him on the basis of date of confirmation, which according to the departmental practice has been the rule of seniority. The inter se seniority of the two had to be determined on the basis of Integration Circular according to the date of continuous appointment in Class I (Senior). According to this, the appellant is entitled to rank senior to Mr. Iftikhar Ali Qureshi, since he began to officiate as Executive Engineer from 9‑10‑49, while Mr. Iftikhar Ali began to officiate from 12‑6‑51.

8. Even in the rank of Superintending Engineer, the appellant began to officiate from 12‑10‑54, whereas the date of officiation of Mr. Iftikhar Ali is 19‑4‑54. Therefore, the appellant ranks senior to him on the basis of continuous date of officiation.

9. It may be mentioned that in the notification of 22‑6‑1970, Mr. Iftikhar Ali was placed at No. 9 and Mr. M. A. Qureshi at No. 12, while the appellant's name does not figure in the list of those who were confirmed by the Government from the dates shown against their names. The dates of confirmation were rectified by the Government in their notification dated 25-6‑1970, in which Mr. M. A. Qureshi is shown at No. 3 with confirmation from 1‑5‑62, and Mr. Iftikhar Ali at No. 12. The name of the appellant does not figure in this list of confirmed officers. National dates of promotion were also assigned by notification dated 25‑6‑1970. In this notification, Mr. M. A. Qureshi, respondent, is at No. 2. The appellant and Mr. Iftikhar Ali, respondent No.3 do not figure in this list.

10. Mr. Iftikhar Ali claims seniority over Mr. M. A. Qureshi and Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad on the ground that at the time of Integra tion, they were Executive Engineers and his date of continuous appointment in that rank being earlier he had to rank above them. The factual position is that Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad began to officiate earlier in the Punjab from 9‑10‑49, while Mr. lftikhar Ali began to officiate from 12‑6‑51. The contention of Mr. Iftikhar Ali is that as Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad ranked below Mr. M. A. Qureshi and the latter had a later date of continuous appointment as Executive Engineer, they both had to rank junior to Mr. Iftikhar Ali.

11. The officiating date of promotion of Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad, appellant, being 12‑10-54, which is earlier than the date of promotion of Mr. Iftikhar Ali, he is entitled to rank senior to him in the rank of Superintending Engineer, but it is argued that as in the seniority list of Executive Engineers as on 13‑10‑1955, Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad was at No. 35, while Mr. Abdul Hameed (3) was at No. 21, and his notional date of promotion as Superintending Engineer is 19‑4‑58, the same as that of Mr. Iftikhar Ali, and Mr. Abdul Hameed started officiating as Executive Engineer later (i.e. 26‑8‑51) than Mr. Iftikhar Ali, therefore, he is entitled to rank senior to Mr. Hameed and Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad, by reason of paragraph 14 of the Integration Circular dated 25‑11‑1955. We are unable to give effect to this argument for the simple reason that Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad was actually promoted as officiating Superintending Engineer before Integration, while Mr. Iftikhar Ali on Integration was an Executive Engineer. Therefore, Mr. Iftikhar Ali could not rank senior to the appellant for purposes of integration. The date of promotion of Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad as Superintending Engineer being 12‑10‑54, he is entitled to rank senior as Superintending Engineer to Mr. Iftikhar Ali, who was so promoted on 19‑4‑58. It is true that while Mr. Iftikhar Ali ha3 been confirmed as Super intending Engineer, Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad, appellant, has not yet been so confirmed, but this is not material as confirmation is not the basis of seniority.

12. In the result, we partly accept the appeal of Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad and hold him senior to Mr. Iftikhar Ali, but dismiss his appeal against Mr. M. A. Qareshi. The parties will bear their own costs.