1971 PLP [C (PLC(CS))

S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).‑This appeal under section 4(1) or the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunal) Ordinance, 1969, is by Muhammad Sharif Butt, who is, a Junior Clerk of Public Prosecutor. Sahiwal. He claims by this appeal that he is entitled to claim seniority in a joint cadre with the clerical establishment of the Solicitor's Office, because the service was originally governed by the Punjab Law and Legislative Department Service Rules, 1951, and because the Solicitor was and is notified as the drawing and disbursing officer as well as head of department in respect of Solicitor's Department and the Mufassil Establishment of Law Officers, and Husnain Haider clerk of Public Prosecutor, Multan was transferred to Solicitor's Office as a Junior Clerk on 22‑7‑1955, which shows that the cadre is the same and clerks are inter‑transferable. The appellant was appointed as a Junior Clerk on probation of two years to Public Prosecutor, Sialkot in the scale of 60‑4‑100/ 5‑120. In 1965, he was transferred from Sialkot to Sahiwal. He protested against his transfer, but his protest was overruled. His case is that a joint seniority list of clerks of Public Prosecutors and the clerical establishment of the Solicitor's Office was prepared in 1966, is which he was shown at No. 15 in the seniority, while Hasnain Haider, Sh. Mohammed Yunas and Abdul, Hafeez were shown at‑ Nos. 5, 6 and 8. The pre paration of such a joint seniority list is denied by the respondents and as the Provincial Government did in the Civil Suit, filed by the appellant for a declaration to the effect that the order of the Solicitor to Government of. West Pakistan, treating the respondents 3 to 6, namely Hasnain Haider, Muhammad Yunas and Abdul Hafiz as senior to him in the seniority list was illegal, void and inoperative, and his rights ‑ were not affected thereby. He further claimed that he was entitled to get his seniority determined according to flee date of his substantive appointment in the year 1952, and to get promotion, pay, increment and allowances on that basis, as it he were confirmed on expiry of map two years. The suit was resisted by the Government and the Solicitor, and the factum of publication of a joint seniority list was denied. The appellant produced Sh. Khuda Bukhsh, Superintendent of Solicitor's Office to show that the appellant had successfully completed his probationary period. In the result the trial Court decreed the suit on. 12‑2‑1969. The Provincial Government appealed against the order, and on the promulgation of the West Pakistan. Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1969, the appellate Court declared the suit to have bated in the view that it related to seniority. The appellant moved the High Court in revision against that order. That matter is pending in the High Court. The appellant by this appeal claim that he is entitled to figure on a joint seniority list to be prepared of clerks of Public Prosecutors and Clerks working‑in the Solicitor's Office, because a his appointment was made under the Punjab Law and Legislative Department Service Rules, 1951, which equally apply to Clerical Establishment of Solicitor's Office and Public Prosecutors' Clerk sand the Solicitor was also the drawing and disbursing officer and head of the department of birth. We have not been shown any joint' seniority list of clerks of Public Prosecutors and of the Solicitor's Office to prove that such a list was prepared or is maintained. Its maintenance is denied by the Secretary Law and the Solicitor to Government of Punjab. It is also admitted that West Pakistan Solicitor's Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1962 govern the Solicitor's ministerial establishment. The appellant does not claim before us that he is also governed by these rules. These rules do not in terms apply to Public Prosecutors' Clarks. It is obvious, therefore; that the clerical cadres became separate, at least from the date on which separate rules were notified for the Solicitor's ministerial establishment. We do not have sufficient evidence of the two cadres being the same or joint inspite of the transfer of some Public; Prosecutor's clerk to the Solicitor's Office. Therefore, we do not see how the appellant can claim as of right to be placed on a joint seniority list of ministerial establishment in the office of the Solicitor, by including Public Prosecutors' Clerks. The two cadres, do not become one and the same merely because drawing or disbursing oilier are head of department is the same. We have not been referred t6 any rule or instructions, which makes the two cadres one or joint, by which the appellant gets the right to have his name included in a joint seniority list of ministerial establishment of the Solicitor's Office. We, therefore, see no force in this appeal, which is dismissed, and leave the parties to bear their own costs. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that the lot of clerks of Public Prosecutors is very hard one, there being no avenues of promotion and if they join as Junior Clerks, l8 they will retire as such. It is necessary, therefore, in the interest of efficiency and integrity of the service, that avenues of promotion be provided to them as in most of the services.