1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).‑‑‑After having been appointed as Data Entry Operator (B‑10) on 29‑1‑1988 in the Office of the Director General Pakistan Post Office at Islamabad, the appellant was transferred by order dated 24‑12‑1988 as Key Punch Operator (B‑10) against a vacant post in the Office of Director (Field), Postal Life Insurance, Northern Lahore, on his own request made through an application in writing to the General Manager, Postal Life Insurance, Lahore.

2. Although the appellant disputed the correctness of this view during the course of his arguments, we take it as sound that his seniority in the Lahore Circle will have to be reckoned with effect from the date of joining the new Office on 29‑1‑1989 under Rule 38 of the Post Office Manual, Volume IV which provides that "an official transferred to another cadre at his own request should take the lowest place in that cadre and that any special privileges to which he may be entitled by virtue of his position in the cadre from which he is transferred, will ordinarily be forfeited on his transfer to the new cadre".

3. In the meanwhile, respondents Nos. 6 to 8 were appointed as Data Entry Operators (as outside candidates) in the Computer Cell on purely temporary and ad hoc basis by order dated 26‑5‑1988, which said that "they should clearly understand that their appointment is purely on ad hoc and temporary basis for a period of three months only and that it does not confer upon them any right to claim regular/permanent absorption to the cadre". It further said that it will be subject to satisfactory completion of training; that they will be required to qualify a test with a speed of 10;000 key depressions per hour for punching data entry and that in case of failure their services will be liable to termination without notice or assigning any reason.

4. Subsequent order dated 30‑8‑1990 in respect of these respondents is also worthwhile. It said that "they are appointed to officiate as Data Entry Operators on regular basis until further orders with effect from 31‑5‑1988 against the existing posts held by them. This appointment shall be on probation for a period one year".

5. It appears to us that there was some dispute between the appellant and the contesting respondents regarding their seniority. It resulted in the issuance of letter dated 22‑5‑1993 to the appellant according to which he was placed against S.No. 1 of the gradation list of Data Entry Operators of 17‑10‑1992 in accordance with the date of his regular appointment on 29‑1‑1988. In the subsequent seniority list, however he was shown against S.No. 3 below the contesting respondents. He was informed by letter dated 29‑6‑1993 that the new seniority list was the result of re‑examination and the fact that he had been brought to the new service on his own request and not in public interest.

6. The validity of fresh seniority list has been challenged in the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 after the appellant failed to have his grievance redressed by departmental appeal.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that the contesting respondents were appointed in the first place by order dated 26‑5‑1988 only on ad hoc basis and that their ad hoc appointment was regularized by order dated 30‑8‑1990 with retrospective effect from 31‑5‑1988, the date on which they joined. It was contended by the appellant that retrospective regularization was not in accordance with law and that the appellant should be deemed to have regularly been appointed in the cadre on 30‑8‑1990. His case is that, in that view of the matter he was senior to them even in the Lahore Circle because of having joined it much earlier than the respondent's regular appointment.

8. The appellant's contention is not without substance. Section 8(3) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 provides that seniority on initial appointment to a service, cadre or post shall be determined as may be prescribed under the relevant instructions. Ad hoc service cannot be reckoned for the purposes of seniority even it is subsequently converted to regular appointment. Reference may be made in support to the Establishment Division's O.M. dated 20‑3‑1988 which was quoted in the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Federation of Pakistan v. Rais Khan 1993 SCMR

609. It said that under the existing rules ad hoc service does not reckon for the purpose of seniority.

9. The appeal is, therefore, accepted with a declaration that the appellant was senior to Mr. Jabran Ali respondent No. 6 as Data Entry Operator and that he should have been considered for promotion as Data Coder (B‑12) m preference to the respondents. The competent authority is directed to consider him for promotion in accordance with rules with effect from the date, respondent No. 6 was promoted to the next higher scale. There will be no order as to costs. AA./914/Sr.F Appeal accepted.