1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ This is an appeal by Raja Abdur Rashid Khan, Tehsildar against the order dated 25‑10‑1989 of Secretary, Revenue Department by which the respondents Nos. 3 to 13 were declared senior to the appellant and the order dated 12‑12‑1989 of Secretary, Revenue Department by which his review petition was rejected.

2. It is stated by the appellant that he was approved as Naib‑Tehsildar candidate by order dated 26‑9‑1967 made by the Minister Incharge of Revenue Department and after completing his Settlement training he was placed on the approved list of candidates for the post of Naib‑Tehsildars by the Commissioner, Azad Kashmir territory w.e.f. 23‑1‑1969. Thereafter, the appellant was appointed as Surveyor in the Forests Department on 6‑4‑1971 and the post of Surveyor was equal to the post of Naib‑Tehsildar. Subsequently under the order of Revenue Commissioner, the appellant was appointed as Naib‑Tehsildar in the integrated Rural Development Programme w.e.f. 17‑5‑1975. But the post of Naib‑Tehsildar in the IRDP was brought under reduction and the appellant was paid his salary against the newly‑created post in the Office of Commissioner. Thus, the appellant remained in the regular service of Revenue Department as Naib‑Tehsildar with effect from 17‑5‑1975. Under the impugned order, the Secretary, Revenue Department while determining the inter se seniority has allowed the seniority of the appellant to be reckoned w.e.f.1‑7‑1978. The grievance of the appellant is that he was senior to the respondents Nos. 3 to 13 but was deprived of his senior position under the impugned order of Secretary, Revenue Department. Feeling himself aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant brought a review petition before Secretary, Revenue Department and the same was also rejected by him. The appellant relies upon the following grounds under which the impugned order and impugned seniority list are not maintainable in law:‑‑ (a) that in the seniority lists 1979 and 1985 the appellant was declared senior to the respondents but in the impugned seniority list the position assigned to him was changed and he was placed junior to the respondents Nos. 3 to 13; (b) that the Secretary, Revenue Department has admitted a time‑barred appeal of Salim Akhtar Awan, Naib‑Tehsildar and as such the impugned order was not maintainable; (c) that the impugned order was made by the Secretary, Revenue Department without examining the record placed on the file and the appellant was illegally deprived of his seniority in the cadre of Naib -Tehsildars; (d) that the appellant entered in the service of Revenue Department on 15‑5‑1975 and his seniority was to be reckoned from that date on which he had actually joined the Revenue Department; (e) that the review petition brought before the Secretary, Revenue Department was illegally rejected by him.

3. It is prayed by the appellant that after setting aside the impugned orders of Secretary, Revenue Department the appellant may be declared senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 13 and the seniority list published in accordance with the impugned order dated 25‑10‑1989 of Secretary, Revenue Department may be amended to that extent.

4. The above appeal was admitted for regular hearing by a short order of this Tribunal dated 4‑2‑1990 and the respondents were asked to submit their objections, if any, as to the maintainability of the appeal brought against them. The appeal was contested by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 7, 9 and

12. It is submitted on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the appellant was taken in the service of the Revenue Department on 21‑5‑1980 while the period spent by him in the Commissioner's Office w.e.f 1‑7‑1978 to 26‑3‑1979 was also counted towards his service in the cadre of Naib‑Tehsildars and while determining the inter se seniority of Naib‑Tehsildars his seniority was allowed to be reckoned w.e.f. 1‑7‑1978, the date from which he was paid the salary of the post of Naib‑Tehsildar while no regular. order was made by the Commissioner's office. On behalf of respondent No. 4 it is submitted that the appeal is not maintainable for being time‑barred and the period spent by the appellant against ex cadre post is not countable towards his service as Naib‑Tehsildar. In fact the appellant had joined the Revenue Department on 21‑5‑1980 and his seniority was to be reckoned w.e.f. that date. Similar objections were taken by the respondents Nos. 3, 7, 9 and 12.

4. We have heard the arguments as were addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record placed on the file. There is nothing on the file to show that the tentative seniority list issued in the year 1979 had attained its finality. However, the appellant was placed senior to the respondents in the seniority list of 1985 and on appeal by Salim Akhtar Awan his position in that list was drastically changed and his name was placed next below the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 13.

5. The second ground of appeal is that the Secretary, Revenue Department has made the impugned order after admitting a time‑barred appeal of Salim Akhtar Awan respondent. The appeal filed by Salim Akhtar respondent shows that he had challenged the entries of the seniority list of 1985 quite in time. The list was published for the information of all concerned Naib -Tehsildars on 5‑2‑1986 and Mr. Salim Akhtar brought his appeal on 5‑3‑1986 within the prescribed period of two months. Hence this ground is not available to challenge the impugned order. The ground taken at serial No. 3 is vague and is not tenable. The next ground is that the appellant had joined the service of the Revenue Department on 15‑5‑1975 and his seniority should have been reckoned from that date. But this is not established from the record that he had joined service in the regular cadre of Naib‑Tehsildar as early as 15‑5‑1975. The fact is that he started his service career as temporary Patwari outside the Revenue Department w.e.f. 18‑1‑1971. Later he became a Surveyor in the Forests Department from where he was posted as Naib‑Tehsildar in IRDP. On 15‑2‑1979, he went back to the Forests Department as Naib‑Tehsildar Demarcation and he was for the first time appointed as Naib‑Tehsildar in the Revenue Department w.e.f. 21‑5‑1980. Hence this ground is also devoid of force and extends no help to the case of the appellant. The right of review petition is generally available to an aggrieved civil servant when the impugned order is made by the Government and no right of appeal before any departmental authority is available. Again this right is available to an aggrieved civil servant whose appeal is rejected by the Appellate Authority. But in the instant case the right of review petition was not available to the present appellant because the appeal was brought against him by Saleem Akhtar, Naib- Tehsildar before the appellate authority and the appellate authority while accepting his appeal had made the impugned order against the present appellant. In the circumstances, the last ground of appeal is also without force and not maintainable.

6. The inter se seniority of Naib‑Tehsildars is to be determined under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Revenue Officers Service Rules, 1970. Under the Revenue Officers Service Rules, 1970, the inter se seniority in the cadre of Naib‑Tehsildars in case of members of such service appointed by initial recruitment is to be determined in accordance with the order of merit assigned by the Revenue Commissioner. But in the present case, no order of merit was drawn up by the Revenue Commissioner after holding the competitive examination of Naib‑Tehsildars on the role of Revenue Department. In absence of merit order, we are left with no other rule of procedure to follow for regulating the inter se seniority in the cadre of Naib‑Tehsildars. In the circumstances of the case their seniority must take effect in case of direct appointees w.e.f. the date on which they had actually joined the Department. Any service which is rendered outside the Department before appointment in the Revenue Department is undoubtedly irrelevant for the purposes of seniority as Naib‑Tehsildar. Hence no benefit of seniority can be given for service rendered as Relief Inspector or a Naib‑Tehsildar outside the Revenue Department. The seniority of the Naib‑Tehsildars shall be determined w.e.f. the date they were actually appointed as such in the Revenue Department. The appellant has actually joined his service as Naib -Tehsildar w.e.f. 21‑5‑1980 and he was to be given seniority from that date. But under the impugned order, the Secretary, Revenue Department has allowed him the seniority w.e.f. 1‑7‑1978 the date from which he was paid the salary of Naib‑Tehsildar for the period he remained attached to the Office of Commissioner, Revenue Department. It is no doubt, admitted fact that the appellant remained attached to the Office of Commissioner w.e.f. 1‑7‑1978 to 26‑3‑1979 and was paid his salary by that office against the post of Naib‑Tehsildar without a regular order having been made in that behalf. In our opinion, the Secretary, Revenue Department has allowed much more than that what was actually due to the appellant and we find no reason to interfere in the Impugned order. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No order as to the costs. AA./195/F.r A Appeal dismissed.