MANZOOR AHMAD And 5 Other vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAK. P.W.D. And 2
This matter concerns six consolidated appeals filed by Sub-Engineers of the Pakistan Public Works Department (Pak. P.W.D.) challenging the redesignation of a junior colleague's post from Sub-Engineer (B-16) to Assistant Engineer (Gazetted) (B-16). The appellants, who were senior to the respondent, contended that this redesignation granted the respondent an unfair advantage in status, powers, and perks, potentially prejudicing their future seniority and promotion prospects. The Service Tribunal had dismissed their appeals, citing both merits and maintainability issues. The core legal question was whether the mere redesignation of a post within the same grade constitutes a promotion that alters inter se seniority. Upon hearing the department's representative, the Supreme Court held that the redesignation was purely an administrative arrangement and did not constitute a promotion. The Court affirmed that the appellants' seniority remained intact. The key principle laid down is that the redesignation of a post to a gazetted status without a change in grade does not amount to a promotion, nor does it affect the inter se seniority of employees within the same grade.
- Does the redesignation of a post from non-gazetted to gazetted status within the same grade constitute a promotion?
- Can the redesignation of a colleague's post affect the inter se seniority of other employees in the same grade?
- Is a redesignation of a post merely an administrative arrangement if the grade remains unchanged?
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Above captioned 6 appeals are proposed to be disposed of by single judgment for the reason that facts and points of law involved therein are same with the only exception that appellants are different. In all these appeals respondent No. 3 is common and is namely Abdul Hamid Bhatti. Grievance of the appellants is that they and respondent No. 3 joined Pak. P.W.D. As Sub-Engineers in Grade-16 and it is beyond dispute that appellants are senior in rank to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 was attached with Central Civil Division, Pak. P.W.D. As a Sub- Engineer (B-16) but subsequently on 23-10-1989 the post of Sub-Engineer '(B-16) held by respondent No. 3 was redesignated as Assistant Engineer (Civil) (Gazetted) in .The same grade which gave cause of grievance to the appellants apparently for the reason that redesignated post carried with it better status and more powers and perks in spite of the fact that grade remained same. Appellants filed representations and departmental appeals but finding no response filed appeals before the Service Tribunal which have been dismissed by judgment impugned in appeals before us.
2. It was contended before the Tribunal by the appellants that on account of redesignation of the post, appellants suffered set back by remaining non-gazetted Sub-Engineers while respondent No. 3 got an edge by becoming gazetted Assistant Engineer and in that capacity if he returns to regular service, he would claim that he is senior in rank to appellants. On the other hand it was submitted before us on behalf of respondent No. 3 that he is in Grade-16 and has not gained any promotion by redesignation of his post as Assistant Engineer. In the seniority list of Sub-Engineers available in the record, name of respondent No. 3 appears at S.No. 56 while names of appellants are indisputably above him. Service Tribunal dismissed appeals on merits and also on the ground of non-maintainability for want of final order as the order impugned was of redesignation of the post and not promotion as such.
3. During the hearing of appeals before us, on our enquiry we were informed that redesignation of the post is not promotion because grade is same and seniority of the appellants is not going to be affected. In response to our direction Mr. Muhammad Younus, Chief Administrative Officer, Pak.
P.W.D. Appeared before us and gave as assurance that redesignation of the post of respondent No. 3 as Assistant Engineer is only administrative arrangement and thereby respondent No. 3 is not promoted because he remains in Grade (B-16) and since appellants are also in the same grade as Sub-Engineers, their inter se seniority will remain same and for the purpose of future promotions seniority list mentioned above would be acted upon. In view of the statement of the Chief Administrative Officer, we direct that redesignation of the post of respondent No. 3 is not to be treated as promotion and if question arises for promotion from the grade of appellants and respondent No. 3, the same would be considered according to the seniority list mentioned above.
Appeals are disposed of in terms of the observation as above.