MUHAMMAD SAGHIR ANWAR vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 5 others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against the recall of his confirmation order as a Junior Clerk. The core question was whether an employee appointed to the Consolidation Wing could be confirmed by the Commissioner as part of the permanent establishment of the Commissioner's office and included in its seniority list. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's findings of fact—that the petitioner remained an employee of the Consolidation Staff and that the Commissioner lacked the authority to confirm consolidation staff into the Commissioner's office establishment—were unexceptionable and justified the recall of the confirmation order. The Court laid down the principle that temporary service in a different wing does not merge an employee's cadre or establishment status with a separate permanent office, and no question of law of public importance arising, leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether an employee of the Consolidation Wing can be confirmed as a permanent employee of the Commissioner's Office?
- Does temporary work in the Commissioner's office merge a Consolidation Wing employee's establishment with that of the Commissioner?
- Whether the recall of an erroneous confirmation order by a competent authority is justified under service law?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 26-5-1991.
2. The petitioner was appointed Junior Clerk on the recommendation of the Divisional Selection Board by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). Subsequently, he was confirmed in the post by the Commissioner and shown in the seniority list of employees of the Commissioner's Office. An objection was taken that he being an empolyee of the Consolidation Wing could not be either confirmed by the Commissioner or shown in the list of the employees of the Commissioner's office. After show-cause notice, the confirmation order was recalled by the Commissioner. The petitioner appealed to the Service Tribunal against recall of such an order but the appeal was dismissed. The Service Tribunal observed with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner as hereunder:-- "The officials of Consolidation Wing whenever they are required to work in the office of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, they still remain employees of the Consolidation Wing and they cannot be treated as permanent employees of the Commissioner's Office. The appellant's appointment in the office of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Sargodha Division was purely for the establishment of that office which cannot be merged in the establishment of Commissioner, Sargodha Division which is of a permanent, nature. It is also added that the appointment authority in case of employees of Commissioner's office is separate whereas the competent appointing authority in case of appointment of Staff of Consolidation Office is separate.
Respondent No,2 after considering the merits of the case as well as hearing the appellant correctly passed the order dated 27-9-1987 in accordance with law."
3. We find the decision of the Tribunal proceeds on two findings of fact, both of which are unexceptionable. Firstly, that the petitioner was an employee of the Consolidation Staff and not of the Commissioner's staff. Secondly, the Commissioner could not confirm the Consolidation staff in his office though temporarily such Consolidation staff could work in his office. On these findings, the recall of the confirmation order and the omission of the petitioner's name from the seniority list of the staff of the Commissioner's office would appear to be justified.
4. No question of law of public importance arises and leave to appeal is refused.