1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑Appellant Muhammad Ismail is a Meter Mechanic, WAPDA. He has preferred this appeal against his super-session by the respondents 2 and 3 (Fayyaz Ahmad and Rehmat Ali respectively).

2. The case of the appellant, as stated in the memo of appeal, is that he joined service as a Meter Tester with REPCO (Rawalpindi Electric Power Company) in the year 1978. After completing three years' training course, he was appointed as a permanent Meter Tester with effect from 2‑5‑1981. The REPCO was taken‑over by the WAPDA in pursuance of Martial Law Order No. 55 and he became employee of the WAPDA as a Meter Mechanic, a re -designated post. On re-orgnisation of the departments of the REPCO by WAPDA, the appellant was declared surplus while his junior Rahat Anwar was retained. He objected to such treatment and filed an Appeal No. 220(R)/84 before this Tribunal. His appeal was decided on 1‑4‑1987 and he was declared senior to Rahat Anwar and his seniority position was rectified. In the meanwhile, he was promoted as a Meter Mechanic in April, 1986. In the revised seniority list of Meter Mechanics, he was placed at S.No. 3, while the respondent No. 3 (Rehmat Ali) was assigned S.No. 4 and the respondent No. 2 (Fayyaz Ahmad) was placed at S.No.

5. However, the respondent No. 3 was promoted as Test Assistant in September, 1988 and the respondent No. 2 was promoted as a Test Assistant on 27‑2‑1990, while he, i.e. the appellant, was ignored. He preferred departmental appeal on 8‑3‑1990. He was informed under letter dated 14‑5‑1990 that his appeal had been rejected. He then preferred this appeal on 10‑6‑1990 to seek the relief of promotion as Test Assistant from the dates his juniors, the respondents 2 and 3, were promoted.

3. The grievance of the appellant is that he was superseded at the time of promotion given to his juniors, the respondents 2 and 3, without disclosing any reason. On the other hand, the respondent WAPDA has contested the appeal contending that the appellant has claimed seniority on the basis of judgment of this Tribunal which was set aside by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 25‑11‑1990 in Civil Appeal No. 435 of 1987 and he lost his seniority. They have also taken the plea that a separate seniority list was prepared in respect of REPCO employees apart from the seniority list of the WAPDA employees and the REPCO employees were considered for promotion on the basis of their separate seniority list. According to them, the appellant and the respondent No. 3 are borne on the seniority list of REPCO employees, while the respondent No. 2 is on the seniority list of WAPDA employees. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of WAPDA stated that the issue involved in this appeal was decided in Appeals Nos. 6(R)/90 to 14(R)/90. The respondents Fayyaz Ahmad and Rehmat Ali have not tiled written objections respondent Fayyaz Ahmad appeared at the hearing of the appeal and conceded that the appellant was entitled to seniority claimed by him, while the respondent Rehmat Ali has chosen to remain ex parte.

4. The appellant has placed reliance on the seniority list, a photostat copy whereof has been filed at page 14 of the memo of appeal. The name of the appellant stands at S. No. 3, while the names of the respondent Fayyaz Ahmad is at S.No. 5 and that of respondent Rehmat Ali at S.No.

4. The dates of promotions of the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 are indicated as 2‑5‑1981. 31‑5‑1981 and 20‑5‑1981. That was the position in the combined seniority list. Subsequently, separate seniority lists were prepared of the WAPDA employees and the ex‑REPCO employees in pursuance of a bipartite agreement between the WAPDA and the Pakistan WAPDA Hydro‑Electric Central Labour Union, whereby two seniority lists were prepared, one of the WAPDA employees and another of the ex‑REPCO employees. It appears that the REPCO employees were not represented at the bipartite agreement made between the representatives of the WAPDA and the CBA of WAPDA employees. The decisions taken at the meeting were, therefore, not binding on the ex‑REPCO employees. Moreover, no criterion was laid down for determining the promotions of the WAPDA employees and the ex‑REPCO employees. Since the REPCO was taken‑over along-with the services of its employees by WAPDA, under Martial Law Order the combined seniority list which was prepared earlier should have been maintained and the promotions should have been given in accordance therewith. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the question of promotion of the appellant shall be decided on the basis of the combined seniority list. No order is made for costs. A.A./672/Sr.F Appeal accepted.