1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑ Manzur Hussain Shah has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan, Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal and Messrs Khan Muhammad and 51 others, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the seniority of the appellant be fixed in accordance with the date of his .appointment i.e. 10th February, 1971 and by virtue of the same he be declared senior to Khan Muhammad respondent No. 4 to Abdul Sattar, respondent No. 55 and others who were appointed to list `E' subsequently to 10th February, 1971. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was recruited as Constable on 12th June, 1959, in Police Department in District Kalat of Province of Baluchistan. His name was brought on list `A' w. e. f. 1st October, 1959 and was placed on Promotion List B. I on 8th September, 1960. He passed the lower school course for the term ending 8th April, 1961 and promoted in the rank of officiating Head Constable on 1st December, 1961. He passed the Intermediate course for the term ending 28th February, 1965 from P. T. C., Sihala. He was promoted as officiating Assistant Sub‑Inspector, vide Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Quetta- Kalat Range, Quetta Order No. 11003‑10/13(12)K, dated 9th September, 1965. He was promoted as officiating Sub‑Inspector, vide A. I.‑G. Police Baluchistan Order No. 887‑93/13(12)/B/CPO II, dated 10th February, 1971, The appellant was transferred from the Province of Baluchistan to the Province of Punjab on 31st December, 1972. 4. Seniority list of temporary/officiating Assistant Sub‑Inspector was notified in the year 1975 as it stood on 1st March, 1975 by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan, but the name of the appellant was missing. In view of this situation, the appellant made two representation to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan, in which he protested that his name had not been entered/shown in the said seniority list and thus unable to know, where he stood vis‑a‑vis his colleagues. No reply was received by the appellant and he kept on wait ing for the decision of the respondents. Ultimately List 'E' was notified as it stood on 1st January, 1981 and the name of the appellant was placed at serial No. 11. The appellant after going through the list found that although his name was placed at serial No. I 1 but he bad practically suffered a loss, as persons junior to him in the seniority list of 1975, had since been promoted on the strength of the said list in which his name was missing. According to him, his name should have been placed at serial No. 37 between Allah Rakha and Fateh Haseeb in the said list of 1975. The appellant did not agitate his grievance to the next higher authorities after the notification of list of 1981, and chose to come directly to this Tribunal with his grievance. 5. We have heared the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied in his case on letter No. SORII(S & G A D) 3‑39/73, dated 23rd November, 1974, from the Chief Secretary of Government of the Punjab to all Heads of Attached Departments in the Province and all Commissioners and Deputy Commis sioners in the Province and others, According to the learned counsel for the appellant in the said letter it has been laid down that the officials repatriated from Baluchistan, could be divided into the following two broad categories :‑ (i) Those who were initially recruited in Baluchistan ; and (ii) Those who were recruited on West Pakistan basis or in the Punjab area but were later on transferred to Baluchistan either on account of their general liability to be transferred or on the formation of regional cadres. It was argued that the case of the appellant fell within the second category which contained that integration formula will apply subject to the condi tion that if the officials are re‑absorbed ;n the same cadre and rank in which they were recruited, they shall regain their original position of seniority but if any official was promoted on regular basis during his stay in Baluchistan then he shall not be reverted to the lower rank and his seniority shall be fixed in his promotion grade according to the Integration formula. He further pointed out that this formula has been explained by the following illustration :‑ If `A' and `B' were recruited as Assistant Engineers on the recom mendation of the West Pakistan Public Service Commission and `A' was placed higher in‑the order of merit and remained in Punjab while `B' was allocated to Baluchistan, then if `B' comes back to Punjab as Assistant Engineer, he would be placed immediately below `A' in the seniority but he was promoted as XEN by the Baluchistan Government on regular basis and `A' still continues to be an Assistant Engineer, then the seniority of `B' should be fixed with other XEN's in Punjab according to date of continuous officiation in this grade and not with Assistant Engineers. The same will hold true if the position of the two officials though junior got promoted while the Baluchistan officials remained in the same rank." While relying on this letter and making submission vis‑a‑vis the contents of the same, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant who was at the time of repatriation an. officiating Sub‑Inspector, could not be reverted to the rank of officiating Assistant Sub‑Inspector which was incomplete violation of the said letter of the Chief Secretary that the appellant be placed senior to the all those who were promoted thereafter. 7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has raised preliminary objection by submitting that this appeal would not be maintainable in the present form, as the appellant has failed to comply with the statutory provision as laid down under section 4 which envisages that it is pre requisite for him to exhaust all the departmental remedies so available to a civil servant. 8. We have examined preliminary .objection of the learned District Attorney and find that late Muzafar Qadir who was senior counsel in the legal set up, committed a mistake by filing an appeal before this Tribunal without advising him to avail the remedy of representation to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab. The Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this Tribunal, has held in a number of cases, that where the person has gone to a wrong forum on the advice of a senior counsel, his grievance and as such wrong advice should not be allowed to stand in his way. We would have taken this point into consideration, if the learned counsel for the appellant would have filed an affidavit to this effect that he gave a wrong advice to the appellant, as this link is missing due to the demise of learned counsel, therefore, we are not in a position to entertain this appeal unless and until the appellant so avail the remedy provided to him under the law. 9. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and keeping into consideration the claim of the appellant, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is fairly strong, we forward this case to the Inspector‑General of Police for consideration on merits. We have also directed the appellant to file an independent representation before the Inspector‑General of Police. The appeal is disposed of as not maintain. able at the present moment. There will be no order as to costs. M. I. Order accordingly