1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had joined service in the office of the D. I.-G. Police at Multan on 31st December, 1957. He was confirmed on 24th May, 1967 as Junior Clerk in D.

1. G.'s Office, Multan. After the creation of One-Unit, rules were framed for Regional cadre. In consequence thereof, in Police Department, two sets of rules viz. West Pakistan Police Department Ministerial Service (Hqr.) and (Range) Rules of 1964, were notified, by the Government on 14th January, 1964. On the introduction of the aforesaid rules the C. P. O. combined cadre was bifurcated into the following two cadres: - (a) Headquarters cadre to be governed by the West Pakistan Police Department Ministerial Service (Hqr.) Rules, 1964. (b) Range cadre to be governed by the West Pakistan Police Depart ment Ministerial Service (Range) Rules, 1964. In the year 1964, Government of the Punjab, put forth option from the persons concerning Range as well as District Cadres. As the appellant was appointed in the office of the D. I.-G. Police, Multanand had remained there throughout the service in the said office, he gave his option for the said Range. However, the appellant realised that the seniority list, which was circulated did not show him, pertaining to the Range Cadre as he was treated as Member of the service of C. P. O. He agitated against it and made a grievance that he being for all purposes, member of Range cadre, could not be considered as member of C. P. O. service and in this manner this was a case of transfer from one cadre to another cadre without any, show-cause notice. He moved in this matter to the I.-G. P., Punjab, Lahore, but it seems no reply has been received from that quarter. In view of the above the appellant had also made grievance against Messrs Muhammad Siddique Hijazi and Munawar Baig, who according to him, could not have been allocated in Range cadre and should not have been Considered as senior.

4. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the written comments submitted by the I.-G. P. and has submitted that he would not dispute the fact on the ground that the appellant did opt to be allocated to range .cadre, but as no decision has so far been made by the I.-G. P., Punjab, with regard to his allocation, the appellant by simlpy giving his choice, would not automatically be considered to have been allocated to the cadre for which he opted. Learned District Attorney has laid emphasis on the fact that until and unless a positive order has been made by the I.-G. P. with regard to the bifurcation of the C. P. O. combined cadre, nobody can claim allocation simply by expressing his option. According to the learned District Attorney, every case has to be processed and ultimate decision in that respect had to be taken by the I. G. P., which has not been taken in this case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has resisted the claim of the learned District Attorney and of the respondents on the plea that the appel lant after giving option, is serving all along in the Range cadre, therefore, by implication, it would be assumed that he deemed to have been absorbed in the Range cadre.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and had asked the learned counsel for the appellant to cite any decision either of this Tribunal or any other superior Court of this country, to show that person after giving his option, would be deemed to be considered Member of the said Range without any specific order of the I.-G. P. in that behalf. Learned counsel has failed to produce any such law or decision and has only relied for his claim on the length of service in the Range cadre, after the appellant had opted for the same. In this respect we cannot ignore the factual plea of the respondents that on account of administrative difficulties, the bifurcation of C. P. O. combined carde, has not yet been finalized. This statement made by the respon dent through their comments placed on the record, has to be accepted as correct unless and until we are satisfied from the side of the appellant that this was factually wrong. Learned counsel for the appellant has not come out with any document to show that the plea taken by the respondent on, this issue, so mentioned above is not correct.

7. We have also taken care by going through the rules to find whether there was any provision of option in the said rules which was to be exercised by the members of this service. We have satisfied ourselves that no such rule is anvil. It always rest with the I.-G. P. to allocate cadre to the member of this service according to the fact and circumstances of each case, particularly when we are satisfied that the bifurcation of the C.P.O. combined cadre has not yet been finalised. The appellant cannot assume things in his favour unless and until his assumption is based on the strength of rules and regulations governing his case.

8. With regard to the case of Messrs Muhammad Siddique Hijazi and Munawar Baig, we have found from the record that they were domi ciled officials repatriated from Baluchistan during 1973, and assigned seniority, in accordance with the policy framed by the Government of Punjab as laid down in their letter No. S. O. R. II (S & G A D) 3-39/73, dated 23rd November, 1974 which has been placed on the record by the respondent as Annexure `A' therefore, no grievance can be made against the seniority so conferred upon Messrs Muhammad Siddique Hijazi and Munawar Baig as the case of the appellant has no relevant with their case. The appellant would be well advised to get his case processed through proper channel and seek allocation of Range cadre after the bifurcation of B C. P. O. combined cadre has been finalized.

9. Resultantly we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, parties sball bear their own costs. To be communicated to the parties. A. E. Appeal dismissed.