1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Seniority--Temporary injunction--Appellant, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, having grievance that respondent Police Officer had actually joined service in Police Department long after date of entry in service by appellant but Department had placed him senior to appellant to give him undue benefits of service; that a temporary injunction was allowed to appellant by Chairman of Service Tribunal subject to right of objection by opposite party and that appellant was likely to suffer irreparable loss and inconvenience--Respondent raised objection that Chairman of Tribunal had no jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction without affording an opportunity of being heard to respondents and that issue of injunction was illegal and without jurisdiction--Held, appellant had an arguable case of seniority which was already in dispute and promotion of respondent was taking place before disposal of appeal which was likely to place appellant in an embarrassing situation resulting in confirmation of seniority of respondent--Factual position was that respondent had already been placed against post of Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police on current charge basis and operation of stay order would not disturb administrative machinery- Balance of convenience also lay in favour of appellant and in the event of withdrawing stay order he would suffer irreparable loss by losing seniority- Temporary injunction already issued was declared to be absolute in circumstances--Grant of temporary injunction by Chairman of Tribunal, held further, could not be objected to as Tribunal consisted of its Chairman and a Member--Issuance of a temporary injunction was a temporary action requiring confirmation by Tribunal and hence, injunction issued did not suffer from any illegality especially when same was issued temporarily subject to objection to be raised by opposite party. (d) Civil service

Grant of temporary injunction by Tribunal is not illegal. Sardar Abdul Rashid for Appellants. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan for Respondents Nos, 2 and

3. An appeal was brought before this Tribunal on 19-9-1989 to impugn the respondent Government Notifications No. 1321-27 and No.3846-56/Police/89, dated 25-2-1988 and 20-8-1989 respectively by which the appointment of respondent No.3 as Prosecuting Inspector in the Police Department was given a retrospective effect from 2-1-9-1975 and he was held entitled to all the privileges, seniority, salary and allowances since that date, The grievance of the appellants is that the respondent No.3 had actually joined his service in the Police Department on 9-8-1976 long after the date of entry in service by the appellants. But respondent No.1 has placed him senior to the appellants to give him undue benefits of service. Through a separate application, it was also submitted to this Tribunal that the case of promotion of respondent No.3 on the basis of impugned orders was being processed and that the appellants would suffer irreparable loss and inconvenience if he was promoted to the next higher post ignoring their rights of seniority. A temporary injunction was allowed subject to the objections by the respondents.

2. The objections of respondents are that this Tribunal held no jurisdiction to issue the temporary injunction without affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondents. The injunction was illegal and without jurisdiction as the Chairman of this Tribunal was not competent to allow that single handed. There is no prima facie case of the appellants and they were not to suffer any irreparable loss at the event of any order being ultimately passed in their favour in this appeal. It was further submitted by the respondents that the balance of convenience was also in their favour and as such the temporary injunction issued in favour of appellants should be vacated.

3. The arguments were addressed at the Bar by the learned counsel of each party. We have carefully examined the record placed on the appeal and have also given our earnest consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the parties to the litigation. Every Officer in a graded service has a vested right to a proper place in the seniority list. That is of highest importance to the Officer, as well as to the maintenance of proper discipline and order within the service and consequently to the public interest which is deeply involved in the maintenance of a proper spirit of order and discipline within the service. Seniority is a right relating to status and it cannot be allowed to be affected by the consideration that it would disturb some appointments already made in disregard of due seniority P L D 1969 S C

302. While going through the record as is maintained in the Home Department of respondent No.1 we find that the latter has taken certain steps to promote respondent No.3 to the next higher grade of PDSP on the basis of seniority which is disputed and pending review by this Tribunal if the steps taken culminate in the promotion of respondent No.3, before the disposal of appeal it will clearly involve confirmation of the seniority which is already in dispute. This would result in frustrating the object of the appeal and avoiding the process of this Tribunal. The appellants have an arguable case of seniority and the promotion of respondents taking place before the disposal of their appeal would definitely place them in an embarrassing situation resulting in confirmation of the seniority of respondents. The respondent No.3 has already been placed against the post of PDSP on current charge basis and the operation of stay order will not disturb the administrative machinery so as to give it any inconvenience in the performance of its normal duties. In our opinion, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants and at the event of withdrawing the stay order they would suffer irreparable loss also by losing their seniority.

4. We cannot contribute to this view that the Chairman of this Tribunal does not have the powers to allow a temporary injunction because this Tribunal consists of its Chairman and a Member. The issuance of a temporary injunction is a temporary action requiring confirmation by this Tribunal and hence the injunction issued does not suffer from any illegality especially when it is issued temporarily subject to the objections by the opposite party.

5. We find no force in this argument also that this Tribunal is lacking the jurisdiction of making a temporary injunction against a public functionary. In fact the provision contained in section 56 of the Specific Relief Act debarring such like actions by the Court is meant for issue of perpetual injunction. The relevant section providing the issue of temporary injunction by a Civil Court is 53 of the aforesaid Act and it has not placed any embargo on the powers of this Tribunal with respect to the issue of temporary injunction against any public Department.

6. For the reasons discussed above we are left with no option to withdraw the injunction granted in favour of the appellants. The objections are devoid of force and are repelled. The temporary injunction already issued is declared absolute. M.Y.H./97/Sr.A Appeal allowed.