1988 PLC(CS) 894
1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ The appellant, Mr. Khan Muhammad Talpur, was working as Ward Rationing Officer on ad hoc basis when he was reverted to his original post of Assistant Food Controller vide order dated 1st March, 1984, of the Secretary to Government of Sind, Food Department. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant went in appeal to the Chief Secretary on 12th March, 1984. However, by his letter dated 4th February, 1987 the Deputy Director, Food, Hyderabad Region informed the appellant that as communicated by the Services & General Administration Department, vide their U.O. No.SO‑APLS (S&GAD)‑2‑12/86, dated 7‑12‑1986 addressed to the Food Department, the appeal preferred by (appellant) Mr. Khan Muhammad Talpur, Assistant Food Controller stood already rejected and there was no provision for second appeal. 'Accordingly he was advised by the same communication to file appeal before Sind Service Tribunal in accordance with the rules. On receipt of the above intimation from the Deputy Director, the appellant filed the present appeal on 4‑3‑1987. His prayer is that the impugned order (rejecting his appeal) be set aside and he may be restored to Grade‑16 and direction be issued for fixation of his seniority as per Rules 10 and 13 of Sind Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975.
2. The factual background of the appellant's case is that he entered Government Service as Food Grain Inspector on 15‑11‑1956. However, his services were terminated on 21‑3‑1968 owing to his unauthorised absence from duty for the specified period. He challenged the order of his ouster from service and ultimately by virtue of the order passed by the Secretary, Food Department, in the appellant's revision petition, the appellant was reinstated on 26‑2‑1971, subject to initiation of disciplinary action under the relevant rules for his unauthorised absence. Accordingly the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. During the pendency of the said proceedings he was promoted to the post of Assistant Food Controller on ad hoc basis on 16‑5‑1972. However, on conclusion of the disciplinary, case, he was found guilty and was awarded major penalty of reversion on 13‑9‑1976. Thus he stood reverted from the post of Assistant Food Controller to that of Food Grain Inspector. The appellant challenged the order of his reversion first before the Director, Food and thereafter before the Secretary Food Department but without any success. Then he came to the Sind Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 50 of 1977 which was dismissed on 13‑111977 as time‑barred.
3. Thereafter the appellant made a petition to the Martial Law Administrator Zone `C', Karachi which was passed on to the Secretary, Food Department for disposal. After detailed scrutiny the then Secretary, Food Department, decided the appellant's case in his favour inasmuch as that all previous orders of lower authorities namely Deputy Director, Additional Director and Director Food Department were modified to the extent that the appellant's entire service alongwith his seniority was restored and that he was ordered to be promoted to the post of Assistant Food Controller on the first opportunity when a vacancy was available in the Hyderabad Region. This order was passed on 14‑7 1979. Pursuant to the said order the appellant was promoted to the post of Assistant Food Controller in Hyderabad (Grade‑8), on 20‑9‑1979, when respondent Abdul Hakeem Qureshi was already working as Ward Rationing Officer (Grade‑16) since 17th March, 1976. The said respondent was promoted as Assistant Food Controller on 26‑5‑1969.
4. After his promotion to the post of Assistant Food Controller the appellant made application for fixation of his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Food Controller, whereupon he was informed that his seniority in the said cadre would be reckoned from 20‑9‑1979 (the date of his entry in that cadre). Being dissatisfied with the said order, he went in Appeal No. 21 of 1980 before the Sind Service Tribunal which was however dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently on his representation he was promoted to the post of Ward Rationing Officer on ad hoc basis on 17‑11‑1983, pending fixation of his seniority. After the Secretary Food Department, came to know the actual position of the appellant's case the appellant was reverted to his original post of Assistant Food Controller by the impugned order. As stated above he riled departmental appeal against his reversion before the Chief Secretary but without any success.
5. On the date of hearing i.e. 4‑8‑1988, the appellant made an application requesting therein that despite the absence of his Advocate he would like to proceed with the case and submit arguments personally. We heard the arguments of the appellant and so also of the learned Government Counsel. We also went through the relevant record available on the file of the case.
6. On careful perusal of the appellant's case, as disclosed in his memo of appeal, it is found that the appellant was aggrieved by the order of his reversion from the post of Ward Rationing Officer to that of Assistant Food Controller vide Secretary's order dated 1st March, 1984 which is reproduced as under:
GOVERNMENT OF SIND
FOOD DEPARTMENT
7. Karachi: dated 1st March, 1984.
NOTIFICATION
8. No. SOP (v)‑1(335)/76‑‑Mr. Khan Muhammad Talpur, working as Ward Rationing Officer on ad hoc basic is hereby reverted to his original post of Assistant Food Controller with immediate effect On reversion his services are placed at the disposal of the Deputy Director Food. Hyderabad for posting.
9. Sd/-
10. A.B.SOOM
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND
11. It would appear from the above order that the appellant was holding the post of Ward Rationing Officer only on ad hoc basis. This is not disputed even by the appellant himself. It is not the case of the appellant that his reversion from the post of Ward Rationing Officer was made as a punishment. Section 12 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 which is relevant here, reads as under:
12. "12. A civil servant appointed to a higher post or grade on ad hoc or on temporary or officiating basis shall be liable to reversion to his lower so post or grade without notice."
13. The above provision of law clearly shows that a civil servant who has been promoted to higher post on ad hoc, temporary or officiating basis can be reverted from the said promotional post without any prior notice. The appellant's reversion from the post of Ward Rationing Officer which he was holding on ad hoc basis, was within the four corners of section 12 referred to above and hence was perfectly in order.
14. However, the appellant's further prayer is that his seniority be directed to be fixed as per Rules 10 and 13 of the Sind Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Seniority Rules). This prayer is too ambiguous. Moreover it is clear to us that the present appeal is directed against the order of appellant's reversion from the post of Ward Rationing Officer to that of Assistant Food Controller. There is no g indication in the said order which has, in any manner, adversely reflected on the seniority of the appellant. The only person who has been joined as a party to the appeal is respondent Abdul' Hakim Qureshi. As disclosed in written statement filed by the official respondents, the appellant was promoted to the post of Assistant Food Controller for the first time on 16‑5‑1972, whereas the said respondent was raised to that post on 26‑5‑1969. Further more the respondent Abdul Hakim Qureshi was working as Ward Rationing Officer in Grade 16, when appellant was promoted to the post of Assistant Food Controller, second time. Thus the question of determination of inter se seniority of the appellant and the said respondent even in the cadre of Assistant Food Controller would not arise‑‑‑
15. It is true that the appellant's entire service together with his seniority was restored by the order of the Secretary Food Department dated 14th July. 1979. But by the said order the earlier orders of the Deputy Director Food, Hyderabad, Additional Director Food, Hyderabad and Director, Food Sind were modified/cancelled only for the purpose of restoration of service and seniority of the appellant as Food Grain Inspector. We are unable to agree that by the above order dated 14th July, 1979 the Secretary Food Department had set aside the order dated 13‑9‑1976 by which the appellant was awarded major penalty of reversion from the post of Assistant Food Controller to that of Food Grain Inspector. First of all this has not been stated in so many words in the order dated 14th July, 1979. Had the order of the reversion been set aside, the appellant would have been ordered to be restored to the rank of Assistant Food Controller simultaneously. On the contrary as per said order the appellant was to be promoted to the post of Assistant Food Controller on the first opportunity when a vacancy occurred in Hyderabad Region. Thus the promotions of the appellant's Juniors, if any, were not intended to be disturbed. However the requirement of the order dated 14th July, 1979 that the appellant was to be promoted as Assistant Food Controller in the first available vacancy was complied with as he was promoted as Assistant Food Controller on 20‑9‑1979.
16. As required by sub‑rule (1) of rule 10 of the Seniority Rules, seniority is reckoned from the date off' regular appointment. The appellant's first promotion to the post of Assistant Food Controller on 16‑5‑1972 was admittedly on ad hoc basis. Before the said promotion was regularized it was withdrawn as a result of penalty of reversion awarded to the appellant on 30‑9‑1976. For this reason also C the seniority of the appellant as Assistant Food Controller cannot be counted from the date of his first promotion to the said post. It appears from the record that the appellant got the promotion as Assistant Food Controller on regular basis for the first time on 20‑9‑1979. As such his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Food Controller would be computed from the said date and not earlier.
17. In view of above discussion the appeal has no merit and is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
18. AA./162/Sr.S
19. Appeal dismissed.