1971 PLC 92[C (PLP)

9.

9. Mr. Atta Mohammad 17-2-61 22-9-61 Promoted 10.

10. Mr. Anwar Vincent 21-8-58 26-3-62 As stenographs 11.

11. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad Khan 13 13-3-58 14-4-62 Graphers 12.

12. Mr. Mohd. Jamil Irfani 21-8-57 9-5-62 13.

13. Mr. Khalil Ahmad Khan 27-1-62 14-10-63 14.

14. Mr. Nazir Hussain Gill 16-9-60 28-4-64 15.

15. Mr. Abdus Saeed Khan (on deputation) (on deputation) 16

16. Mr. Mohammad Rashid 20-11-59 14-5-64 17.

17. Mr. Rauf Ahmad Bhatti 29-10-56 4-4-64 In dispute It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the method of appointment for Steno typists in the Board of Revenue was promotion from Junior Clerks. In support of this, he has produced copses of the orders in which respondents Nos. 2‑11 were promoted from Junior Clerks to Steno typists. The appellant was promoted as a Steno typist on 1‑3‑1960 in the Census organization, where he was on deputation. He was thus on deputation and qualified for this post from this date and be should be given the benefit of his service as Steno typist, from 1‑3‑1960 big appointment in: the Census Organization cannot be said to be an appointment in the Board of Revenue. Promotion of a person While op deputation does not automatically entitle him to pro motion in the parent department, and needs examination according to the rules. Promotion of a person on deputation is governed by note 4 to rule 4,13 of C. S. R. (Pb.), Vol. 1, Part 1, which relates to pay of officiating Government servants. The note to rye rule:- The following guiding principles are laid down for the working of the convention usually known as the next below rule :‑ (1) A Government servant out of his regular line should not suffer by forfeiting officiating promotion which he would otherwise have received, had he remained in big regular line. (2) The fortuitous officiating promotion of some one junior to a Government servant who is out of the regular line does not give rise to a claim under the next below rule. (3) Before a claim is established, it is necessary that all the Government servants senior to the Government servant who is out of, the regular line should have been given officiating promotion. (4) It is also necessary that the Government servant next below him should have been given promotion, unless in any case the officiating promotion has not been given because of inefficiency, unsuitability or leave. The above note has to 6e read with rule 10.5, C. S., R., which is.‑‑ "10.5 (1) A Government servant transferred to foreign service shall remain in the cadre or cadres in which he was included in a substantive or officiating capacity immediately before his transfer. He may be given such substantive or officiating promotion in those cadres as the authority competent to order promotion may decide. In giving promotion such authority shall take into account‑ (a) the nature of the work performed in foreign service, (b) the promotion given to juniors in the cadre in which the question of promotion arises. (ii) In any individual case the competent authority may grant a Government servant, outside his cadre or cadres but in his own line, such promotion as it considers he would have got had he not been transferred to foreign service." It will show that a deputations can get promotion in his own line. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondents were Junior Clerks and they were promoted as Steno typists. The appellant was also qualified as a Steno typist as is proved from his appointment as Steno typist in the Census Organization on 1‑3‑1960. He should; therefore, get the benefit of his appointment as a Steno typist under the next below rule. It has to be examined whether the post of Steno typist is in the line of a Junior Clerk. The appellant was a Junior Clerk when he proceeded on deputation. The next above post is that of a Senior Clerk and the Board of Revenue gave him promotion in absentia to this post. The post of Steno typist is to be filled by direct appointment under rule 5 (1) (d) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Ministerial Service Rules, 1963. Prior to this, there were no rules for the post of Steno typist, as this post did not exist before Integration. The Government representative explained to the Tribunal that the appointment to the post of Steno typist was made before the coming into force of 1963 Ministerial Service Rules from Junior Clerks by holding a test in shorthand and type writing. The appellants never appeared in the test. The appellant was sent on deputation on 29‑12‑1959 to the Office of Director of Census. The order at Appendix P‑1 transferring the appellant also included a term that the interests of these officials who were sent on deputation will be safeguarded in the Office of Board of Revenue as a special case for the period of deputation. This was consistent with the general policy laid down under rule 4.13 of C. S. R. (Pb.), Vol. I, Part I and rule 10.5. In 1960, the actual practice of the department was to promote Junior Clerks of their office who were proficient in shorthand and typewriting. The appellant had this qualification as he eras appointed as a Steno typist in the Office of Director of Census on 1‑3‑1960. He was even promoted as a Stenographer on 2‑10‑1962. It proves that he was fully qualified to be appointed as a Steno typist. Had he not proceeded on deputation from the Board of Revenue, he would have naturally been selected for this post. It is just and fair that he should not be deprived of this promotion simply because his services were required in a sister organization and he was sent there in public interest. We are of the view that keeping in view the policy laid down in the above quoted provisions of the C. S. R. and the assurance given to the appellant for safeguarding his interests in the office of the Board of Revenue, it is imperative that he should not be deprived of his promotion as a Steno typist for which he was fully qualified. He should be deemed to have been appointed as a Steno typist from 5‑3‑1960 and as a Stenographer from 1‑12‑1965 when his next junior Mr. Nazar Hussain was so appointed and promoted respectively. The appeal is, therefore, accepted with no order as to costs.