Ch. SARDAR MUHAMMAD and others Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT

ORDER

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The four petitioners seek leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 5-4-1981 whereby on the undertaking given by the Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Government of Punjab, the Service Tribunal directed him to finalize the gradation list by the end of May, 1981 failing which the provisional list dated 13-1-1979 will be considered for all purposes the seniority list of the said department.

2.Muhammad Amin respondent, a civil servant, of the Communication and Works Department, had been making repeated efforts to get the seniority list of the officers employed in his department prepared as enjoined by subsection (3) of section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. He had been getting directions issued by the Service Tribunal for the preparation of such a list. He filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal impleading only the Secretary of the department requiring him to prepare the list. An order was passed by the Service Tribunal on 25- 10-1976 consigning that appeal to the record. It reads as follows:--

3.On 4-4-1979 a miscellaneous application was filed with reference to the consigned appeal. Again a direction was given on 18-4-1979 to the Secretary to prepare and publish the seniority list within a period of three months.

4.On 21-12-1980 he submitted another application mentioning amongst others, the petitioners as respondents alongwith the Secretary of the Department and claimed the seniority to be adjusted. He obtained an interim order which was vacated but after contest, and holding that the appeal consigned to the record could not be revived the Service Tribunal passed an order the operative part of which is as follows:--

5.The petitioners want to maintain this petition on the grounds that the appeal filed by the private respondent having been consigned to the record he could not file miscellaneous applications and obtain orders of the Tribunal because no such appeal was at all pending before the Tribunal after that order had been passed. Secondly, it is contended that the private respondent could only file an appeal against a final order but as no final order had ever been passed even the applications filed were not competent. Finally, it has been contended that by sanctifying the provisional seniority list the Tribunal has usurped the function of the departmental Head and stultified the likely action that could be taken on the representations received against the provisional seniority list.

6.The order which is impugned before us has been passed on an undertaking, earlier, given by the Head of the Department on a service grievance of the respondent, which has been receiving the attention of the Service Tribunal time and again. The order does not have the effect of usurping the authority of the Departmental Head but on the contrary it enables the respondent to take suitable action and finalize it expeditiously. The date fixed for finalizing it and the direction given to the Departmental Head on his own undertaking for doing so did not foreclose the departmental action on the representations, their processing and adjudication but only provided a relief, rightly observed against the provisional seniority list, to the respondent. The department is yet free to finalize the list but that should not, till it is so finalized, prevent, the parties affected to either seek their redress before the Tribunal or advancement in the department on the basis of the provisional list.

7.We do not find that the order, in any manner, impinges on the rights of the petitioners and the party against whom it is directed is not feeling aggrieved by it. It raises no question of law of public importance which may require our attention. Leave to appeal is therefore refused.