MUHAMMAD TAJRIAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding seniority determination. The petitioner, formerly an Office Superintendent in the Department of Weights and Measures, joined the Federal Investigation Agency (F.I.A.) following the abolition of his previous department. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s seniority in the F.I.A. should be reckoned from his initial appointment in the Department of Weights and Measures or from his date of appointment in the F.I.A. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the petitioner's employment in the F.I.A. constituted a fresh appointment rather than a transfer of service. The Court held that because the petitioner failed to provide evidence that his F.I.A. appointment was a transfer, and because he and the respondent were selected through a fresh recruitment process, the department's seniority list—based on the date of regular appointment and merit—was legally justified. The principle established is that in the absence of proof of transfer, service in a new department is treated as a fresh appointment for seniority purposes.
- Whether service in a new department following the abolition of a previous department constitutes a transfer or a fresh appointment?
- Can seniority be reckoned from a previous department if the appointment in the new department is a fresh recruitment?
- Is a department's determination of seniority based on the date of regular appointment and merit legally justified when no transfer is proven?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal by which his appeal was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was serving as Office Superintendent (BPS-14) in the Department of Weights and Measures. It seems that this department was to be abolished on 31-3- 1978. However, a circular was issued by F.I.A. For recruitment for the post of Office Superintendent for which the petitioner and respondent No, 4, who was his colleague, applied. Both were selected.
The petitioner joined F.I.A. On 22-4-1978 as Superintendent in BPS-14 while Wazir Khan joined on 19- 4-1978. From the record it seems that the Departmental Promotion Committee which had interviewed the petitioner and respondent No,4 selected 18 candidates for appointment as Office Superintendent. In order of merit the petitioner was at serial No, 11 while respondent No,4 was at serial No,5. In the seniority list Wazir Khan respondent. No,4 was shown senior to the petitioner, who filed departmental appeal on 3-8-1995 requesting that his date of appointment as Office Superintendent in F.I.A. May be reckoned from 4-2-1975 and he may be treated senior to respondent No,4. As no reply was received, the petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal with the same prayer. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed their objections pleading that the petitioner was appointed in response to the circular insured by the F.I.A. And taking into consideration the merits determined by the Selection Board, respondent No, 4 has been given seniority from the date of their regular appointment in F.I.A. It was further stated that respondent No,4 had joined service earlier than the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment holding that the determination of seniority by the department was legal and justified.
3. The petitioner has contended that his seniority should be reckoned from the date when he had joined the department of Weights and Measures and not from the date of appointment in F.I.A. He claimed that his service continued from the day he was appointed in the Weights and Measures Department and as being senior there, should be declared senior to respondent No,4 in F.I.A. As well. The Tribunal after examining the record was of the opinion that the post held by the petitioner in the Department of Weights and Measures was of a temporary nature and the petitioner was a fresh entrant in the F.I.A. The petitioner and respondent No, 4 both had applied and were selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee. A fresh appointment letter was issued with terms and conditions contained therein. The petitioner has not been able to show any document to support his contention that his appointment in F.I.A. Was by way of transfer and not by way of fresh appointment. In these circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is unexceptionable and cannot be interfered. Leave is refused.