1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Appellant Mr. Abdul Khaliq, an officer in B‑17 in the Accounts Group,‑ has filed this appeal for his induction in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre in the Group with effect from 6‑4‑1981.

2. The appellant's case, in nutshell, is that he was brought on a Grade‑1? post in the Pakistan Audit Department with effect from 3‑11‑1973 and he has been holding that post since then. Consequent to formation of the Accounts Group in the Pakistan Audit Department vide Establishment Division O.M. No.l/2/74‑ARC, dated 23‑1‑1974, Grade‑17 posts in the Pakistan Audit Department were bifurcated into two cadres viz.‑ Grade‑17 (Departmental Cadre) and Grade‑17 (Inter‑departmental Cadre), the former Cadre consisting of Officers in Grade‑17 promoted departmentally, and the latter Cadre consisting of Grade‑17 officers inducted thereto from amongst Grade‑17 officer promoted departmentally and those recruited directly in the ratio of 1:

1. His grievance that he was not inducted into the Inter‑Departmental Cadre. According to him he should have been inducted to that Cadre with effect from 6‑5‑1981 but he did not find his name in the combined seniority list of Grade‑17 officers in the Inter Departmental Cadre circulated under letter dated 17‑6‑1981. He made representations for his induction in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre. He was informed under letter dated 25‑5‑1986 that he was not cleared for induction into the Inter‑Departmental Cadre by the Departmental Promotion Committee at its meeting held on 30‑10‑1985. He again made an application dated 13‑5‑1987 for reconsideration of his induction in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre. He was informed under letter dated 13/22‑6‑1987 that he. was not selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee for induction in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre and that his case would be placed before the Committee again at its next meeting. He then filed this appeal on 25‑7‑1987.

2. The appellant has based his case on the proposition that his induction to the Inter‑Departmental Cadre should have been made automatic by virtue of his seniorty and it was not to be processed through the Departmental Promotion Committee and he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 348(L) of 1983 filed by one Faiz Ahmad Malik. The learned counsel appearing on his behalf also has reiterated the same proposition and placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment of this Tribunal.

3. The appeal has been contested by the respondents contending that induction to the Inter‑Departmental Cadre was not automatic process but it needed approval of the competent authority. According to him, the appellant's case was; placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee which did no; approve him for induction to the Inter‑Departmental Cadre. They have raised legal pleas that the appeal is not maintainable in law and facts inasmuch as that is barred by proviso (a) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and is also barred by limitation and is bad for non‑joinder of necessary parties.

4. As a measure of Administrative Reforms, Were abolished services were abolished and new Occupational Groups were introduced. The first of those Groups was the "Accounts Group" constituted in the Ministry of Finance under O.M. No. 1/2/74‑ARC, dated 23‑1‑1974, subsequently amended ~ vide O.M. No.2/1/75‑ARC, dated 3‑3‑1976. Its composition was as under: (Ref: ESTACODE, 1983 edition, at page 723): (i) All posts in the Pakistan Audit and Accounts Department, the Military Accounts Department and the Railway Accounts Department; (u) All Posts in the Accounts Cadres of the T & T Department and the Pakistan Post Office; and (iii) All accounts posts under Ministries, Divisions and Departments of the Federal Government other than the posts of Budget and Accounts Officers or Finance and Accounts Officers in the Ministries and Divisions of the Federal Secretariat. The broad frame‑work of rules and regulations etc. within which the Group is to function is outlined in paragraphs 3 to 13 of the O.M. The rules and regulations contained in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are relevant for the purpose of this case and they are reproduced hereinbelow:‑‑ "

3. From Grade‑1 to Grade‑17.‑‑Each Department will operate separately as heretofore except with regard to Graede‑17 posts included in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre vide para. 4 below. The existing instructions in regard to quotas for direct recruitment and promotion, the composition of promotion and Selection Committees, the appointing authorities for various grades, etc. will continue to apply. All posts to be filled by direct recruitment will be advertised.

4. Inter‑Department Cadre.‑‑(a) All posts in Grade‑17 which were formerly borne on the cadre of the former Accounts Services and 25%0 of Grade‑17 Accounts posts in the T&T Department and Pakistan Post Office Department shall be borne on an Inter‑Departmental Cadre. Posts in Grade‑17 sanctioned after 20th August, 1973 will be distributed between the Departmental and Inter‑Departmental Cadres in the ratio of 3:

1. The Cadre shall in addition to comprise all posts in Grade‑18 and above in the Accounts Group. Officers of the Inter‑Departmental Cadre will be transferable from one Department to the other. (b) Appointments to posts in Grade‑17 on the initial formation of the Inter Departmental Cadre will be made by allocating posts to the promotee officers and the direct recruits in Grade‑17 in the ratio of 50: 50, on year to year basis. Future appointments to Grade‑17 posts in the cadre will also be made by allocating vacancies arising in that grade to officers of the Departmental Cadre and the direct recruits in the ratio of 50 :

50. The ratio is subject to review after 5 years. (c) All officers who are holding posts in Grade‑18 and above on regular basis shall be deemed to have been appointed to the Inter‑Departmental Cadre in their respective grades. (d) The number of Grade‑17 officers of a department approved for induction in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre shall not exceed 50% of the number of Grade‑17 posts contributed by that department to the Inter Departmental Cadre. (e) The probationer officers recruited on the results of the competitive examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission who, after completion of integrated training at the Academy for Administrative Training, are allocated to the Accounts Group will undergo common Departmental, to he followed by an examination " which will be prepared by the Auditor‑General. Thereafter, they will be allocated to a particular Accounts Department. They will ordinarily remain in that Department until they get promotion to the next higher grade.

5. Posts in Grade‑18 and above will be filled by promotion of officers of the Inter‑Departmental Cadre in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It would appear that the posts from Grades 1 to 16 in the Accounts Group were to be regulated by the respective concerned departments in accordance with the existing instructions, while the posts in Grade‑17 were placed in two cadres, one being Departmental Cadre and another known as the Inter‑Departmental Cadre. The posts in Grade‑17 in the Departmental Cadre are to be regulated by the concerned department, while the posts in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre are to be regulated in accordance with the rules and regulations contained in the O.M. The composition of the Inter‑Departmental Cadre, as per paragraph 4, reproduced above, is that all posts in Grade‑17 which were formerly borne on the cadre of the former Accounts Services and 25% of Grade‑17 Accounts Posts in the T&T Department and Pakistan Post Office: and the posts in Grade‑1.7 sanctioned after 20th August, 1973 were to be distributed between the Departmental and the Inter‑Departmental Cadres in the ratio of 3 :

1. This Cadre, i.e. the Inter Departmental Cadre also comprised all posts in Grade‑18 and above in the Accounts Group. Appointments to posts in Grade‑17 on the initial formation of the Inter‑Departmental Cadre were made by allocation of posts to the promotee officers and the direct recruits in Grade‑17 in the ratio of 50: 50 on year to year basis and same ratio was provided for appointments to Grade‑17 posts in the vacancies arising in the grade. The number of Grade‑17 officers of a department approved for induction in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre is not to exceed 50 per cent of the number of Grade‑17 posts contributed by that department to the Inter‑Departmental Cadre. All the officers who were holding posts in Grade‑18 and above were deemed to have been appointed to the Inter‑Departmental Cadre in their respective grades. Lastly, posts in Grade‑18 and above are to be filled by promotion of officers of the Inter‑Departmental Cadre in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It follows from the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the O.M. dated 23‑1‑1974, as amended vide O.M. dated 3‑3‑1976, that induction to the Inter‑Departmental Cadre in Grade‑17 is not a matter of course but it needs approval, as provided in clause (d) of paragraph 4 reproduced above and there is logic behind it as Grade‑17 posts in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre provide base for promotion to Grade‑18 and above. In the instant case, the appellant's case was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for clearance to his switching over to the Inter‑Departmental Cadre but he was not approved. It is stated in the written objections filed by the respondents that his case was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee at its meeting held on 17‑8‑1980 but he was not recommended for induction in view of his service record. A photo-stat copy of the minutes of the meeting of the D.P.C. held on 17‑8‑1980 has been placed on the record. It appears that his case was again placed before the D.P.C. on 23‑9‑1982, 11‑11‑1984 and 1‑10‑1987 and he was not recommended for induction to the Inter‑Departmental Cadre due to his indifferent record, as borne out by the minutes of the meetings, photo-stat copies whereof have been placed on record at the hearing of the appeal. Thus, the appellant could not enter the Inter- Departmental Cadre. Of course, a Bench of this Tribunal did make observation in Appeal No. 348 (L) of 1983 (Fait Ahmad Malik v. Secretary, Establishment Division and others), decided on 12‑5‑1984 that it was rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant therein that the induction to the Inter Departmental Cadre was automatic, and the learned counsel for the respondent could not put forth a convincing argument that the induction was to be made after clearance by the Departmental Promotion Committee. With due regard that wi have for the opinion of the Bench, we hold a different view that induction to the Inter‑Departmental Cadre is not an automatic process but it needs approval a; per clause (d) of paragraph 4 of the O.M. dated 23‑1‑1974, as discussed above.

5. The appeal has been opposed also on the ground of limitation and it: non‑maintainability for want of departmental appeal/representation. The appellant's case in the memo of appeal is that he was due for induction to the Inter‑Departmental Cadre with effect from 6‑5‑1981 but his name was not mentioned in the combined seniority list of Grade‑17 officers in the Inter Departmental Cadre circulated under letter dated 17‑6‑1981. According to Tim he made first representation on 28‑12‑1983 for his induction to the Inter Departmental Cadre but he did not get reply despite several reminders sent by him. The representation made by him after nearly 2‑1/2 years was itself time barred. The appellant has next stated that he made another representation on 4‑3‑1986 and he was informed under letter dated 25‑5‑1986 that his name was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 30‑10‑1985 but he was not found fit for induction. Even then, he did not file appeal before this Tribunal. He has stated that he made representation again on 13‑5‑1987 and he was informed under letter dated 13/22‑6‑1987 that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not clear his case for induction in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre. He filed this appeal on 25‑7‑1987. It would appear from the aforesaid events that the appellant made repeated departmental representations for his induction in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre and he made his relief before this Tribunal time barred as repetition of representations did not extend the statutory period of limitation for filing appeal before this Tribunal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as well, but not on the ground that no departmental remedy was availed of before coming to the Tribunal. The respondents have also raised the legal plea that the appeal is bad for non‑joinder of necessary parties. But that ground could arise if the appellant had claimed seniority, whereas his prayer is for his induction in the Inter‑Departmental Cadre and that objection is not tenable in this appeal.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./467/Sr. F Appeal dismissed.