1984 PLP 1436 (PLC(CS))

‑‑-Recategorization‑General Principle‑Held, recategorization can only be made by Managing Director. (b) Recruitment and Staff Promotion Rules, 1976‑

‑‑ Abolition of posts‑Changing of category‑Duty clerk‑Unless abolition of post is held illegal or without jurisdiction, no direction can be issued to post a worker against such post. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 29th May, 1982. The above‑captioned two appeals arise, from the decision dated 15th September, 1979 and 8th September, 1980 whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents were accepted and recategorization from duty clerk in traffic category to Junior Clerk in the clerical was made. The case of the respondent was that firstly no change of category could be ordered and secondly that only the Managing Director could change the category.

2. According to Recruitment and Staff Promotion Rules, 1976, Duty Clerks belong to traffic cadre and the junior clerks belong to establishment cadre. According to the General Principles, recategorization can be mad by the Managing Director only, whereas in the present case the order was passed by the General Manager, who is below the former. The order of recategorization, therefore, is not according to rules and thus is not sustain able. But the respondents have failed to consider that on account of the abolition of their posts, their category was changed in order to save them from retrenchment. It has not been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the abolition of the posts of duty clerks (traffic) is uncall ed for. The learned lower Court, no doubt, has directed that the respon dents be posted as duty clerks but has not held that the abolition of their posts of duty clerk is uncalled for or illegal, nor it has been shown by the respondents that the posts of duty clerk have been abolished by the authority not competent to do so. The appellant is P. R. T. B. through Manag ing Director and the case of the appellant is that the appellant is compe tent to abolish the posts. No question of changing the category arises on account of the abolition of the posts of duty clerks. So unless the abolition of the posts of duty clerks is held as illegal or without jurisdiction, the direction to post the respondents on the said posts could not be given. Likewise the direction that the respondents be alternatively posted against any other vacancy in the category of traffic is without any basis. The learned lower Court record does not show that any vacancy in the traffic category of the same cadre as of duty clerk exists. If there is no such vacancy, how the respondents can be posted against any non‑arising vacancies.

3. In the circumstances discussed above, I partly accept the appeals of the appellant and declaring that the order of recategorization of the respondents is without jurisdiction, direct that the respondents be posted against any equivalent posts in the traffic cadre, if possible, or fresh order of recategorization, according to the rules, be passed by the competent authority in order to save the respondents from retrenchment. M. Y. M. Appeal allowed.