2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NASIM SABIR SYED (MEMBER).‑‑‑The relevant facts of this case are that the appeal is directed against the impugned office order, dated 24‑3‑1997 whereby the appellant U.D.C. (B‑7) was transferred back to his parent office i.e. Civil Defence Academy, Lahore from Civil Defence Training School with immediate effect. It has been claimed by the appellant that this transfer was mala fide as he was serving in Civil Defence Training School, Lahore since 8‑4‑1974. This Training School alongwith all other Provincial Civil Defence Schools were taken over by the Federal Directorate General, Civil Defence, Islamabad with effect from 1‑10‑1975. The appellant on his transfer from Provincial Civil Defence Training School, Lahore was appointed as Demonstrator under respondent No. 3 i.e. Commandant Federal Civil Defence Training School, Sector B‑II, Township, Lahore with effect from 1‑10‑1975 vide office order No.14/27/73, dated 15‑10‑1975. It was highlighted that services of the appellant were transferable to anywhere in Pakistan. While the appellant was serving as Demonstrator under respondent No.3, he was promoted to the post of L.D.C. in Grade‑5 with effect from I‑1‑1975 by the Directorate General Civil Defence i.e. respondent No. 1 vide office order, dated 12‑1‑1976. After more than 4 years of his service as L.D.C. under respondent No.3 he was promoted in the post of U.D.C. in Grade‑7 and posted as such under respondent No.2 i.e. Commandant Civil Defence Academy, Lahore. During all this period and also thereafter' no seniority list was prepared under the prescribed rules. Respondent No.1 delayed the same without any cogent reasons. However, in the month of June, 1996 vide circular, dated 24‑6‑1996, it was decided that the seniority of the employees serving in B‑1 to B‑15 (except Training Staff of Civil Defence Institute including Directorate‑General Civil Defence) will be taken on combined basis. Provisional seniority was also circulated for information of all concerned vide letter, dated 24‑6‑1996. Through the abovesaid provisional combined .seniority list, it had come to the knowledge of the appellant that although his seniority was fixed in the cadre of U.D.Cs. at Serial No.3, yet he was ignored without any reason and against the rules, in regard to the grant of Selection Grade B‑9: He made representation to the department that he .may also be granted selection grade on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness from the date his juniors were granted. When the appellant was posted in the Academy under respondent No.2 his services were transferred , to Training School under respondent No.3 against an existing vacancy of U.D.C., vide order, dated 26‑6‑1996. It was alleged that respondent No.1 without deciding the representation of the appellant for selection grade issued a combined seniority list vide circular, dated 25‑9‑1996 whereby the cadre of U.D.Cs. has been further bifurcated into. two and selection grade U.D.Cs. who were junior to the appellant, were shown over and above as senior to him in one cadre and in the cadre which was meant for U.D.Cs. in B‑7 appellant's seniority has been fixed as Serial No.2 and respondent No.4 has been shown at Serial No.9 whose date of appointment as L.D.C. is 15‑10‑1981 and date of promotion as U.D.C. is 1‑5‑1991. It was highlighted that there existed post of Superintendent in B‑10 in the, Training School but to undermine the promotion of the appellant for selection in selection grade, he was transferred from Training School under respondent No.3 to Academy under respondent No.2, so that the appellant could not be promoted to this post of Training School, being the senior most U.D.C. serving in the Training School. As such it was claimed that these orders were mala fide and prejudicial to this advancement in service.

2. The department on the other hand has taken the plea that he has been transferred to Academy because he is a confirmed U.D.C. there. This argument does not seem logical because if he was confirmed U.D.C. in Academy, then on transfer to the Training School he was also a confirmed U.D.C.. This transfer does not appear to be a transfer in public interest and the contention of the appellant that it was with mala fide intention to deprive p, him of the right of promotion to selection grade is rather convincing. Under the circumstances, the transfer orders from Training School to Academy are hereby set aside with the direction that his case be considered for selection grade in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable in such cases.

3. The appeal stands disposed of as above.

4. No order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./259/St/F????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.