2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).

This appeal is directed against the original impugned seniority list as stood on 31-12-1999 issued vide Notification dated 4-12-1999.

2. Precisely, the facts of the present appeal are that appellant and private respondent No.3 were serving as Junior Engineers in WAPDA. On their transfer from WAPDA to the Irrigation and Power Department Government of Sindh, they were posted as Asstt. Executive Engineer '(Civil) in the SCARP-South Rohri Project, Hala w.e.f. 1-7-1988 vide Notification dated 2-7-1988. In a seniority list as stood on 15-7-199Q appellant's name was placed at serial No.84 while that of private respondent No.3 at serial No.85. In subsequent seniority lists as stood on 31-1-1991, 31-10-1994, 5-1-1995 and 31-8-1998 appellant's name was shown over and above the private respondent No.3 and at no stage the later raised/filed objections against the seniority position. However, in a seniority list as stood on 31-12-1999 'circulated vide Notification dated 4-12-1999, appellant's name was placed at serial No.15, whereas private respondent No.3's name was placed at serial No.14 i.e. over and above the appellant. After availing department remedy which remained unresponded, appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

3. In support of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in all the seniority lists issued from 1988 to 1998 appellant was placed over and above the private. respondent No.3 therefore without assigning any reasons and issuance of show-cause notice relegation of appellant to lower position is neither legal nor proper and justified. He contended further that both the contesting parties were transferred from WAPDA to Irrigation and 'Power Department through one and same Notification dated 2-7-1988 and since the appellant was older in age, therefore, in view of Rule 12(a) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, he was ranked senior to private respondent No.& He submitted that impugned seniority list being illegal, void ab initio and opposed to the facts available on record may be set-aside and appellant's original seniority position over and above the-private respondent No.3 may be restored.

4. In rebuttal, it was contended that private respondent No.3 jointed regular service in WAPDA prior to appellant, as such their seniority shall be determined in accordance with their respective dates in the posts held by them before their transfer and appointment in the Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Sindh, thus the private respondent No.3 in the impugned seniority list was rightly placed over and above the appellant.

5. On careful perusal of the case file it transpires that appellant and respondent No.3 were appointed as Junior. Engineers (Civil) by WAPDA on 20-5-1987. Private respondent No.3 (Salman Memon) joined WAPDA on 31-5-1987 while appellant joined on 3-6-1987 i'.e. after 6 days of joining WAPDA by respondent No.3. Admittedly, appellant is older in age than private respondent No.3, but it is also an admitted fact that private respondent No.3 joined WAPDA prior to the appellant and was thus senior. Thorough scanning of the record made available before us reveals that both the contesting parties were neither appointed in Irrigation and Power Department on their request nor otherwise.,,They were transferred to Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Sindh, because 300 completed Tube wells in Nasir and Hala Units of 1 SCARP South Rohri Project. Hala which belonged to WAPDA were also transferred to the Government of Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, would not be applicable at all. Since they were transferred to Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Sindh along with 300 completed 'Tube wells of WAPDA, therefore, principally they should maintain their original seniority of WAPDA. As stated earlier, in WAPDA private respondent No.3 was senior than appellant. Therefore, on their transfer to Government of Sindh, the same seniority position would continue. Contention raised on behalf of appellant that under R.12 (a) of Rules of 1975 he being older in age shall rank senior to private respondent No.3, has not force. It may be stated that seniority is not a vested right and the respondent No.1 simply rectified the mistake earlier committed.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that respondent No.1 committed no illegality or irregularity in placing respondent No.3 over and above the appellant in the impugned seniority list circulated vide Notification dated 4-12-1999. The appellant thus being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear C their own costs.

7. Announced in open Court. H.B.T./46/FST???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.