1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).‑This is an appeal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 from an order issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Sind, dared 11th October, 1977 reverting the appellant from Grade‑18 to Grade‑

16. The facts of the case in brief are, that Mrs. Rafat Ara was serving as a Field Officer, Social Welfare Department in Grade‑16, Her husband Dr. Aziz Sayeed who was working as Principal Officer in the National Bank of Pakistan having expired, letter of condolence, dated 24th July, 1975 was received by her from the then Prime Minister of . Pakistan. While replying to that letter the appellant requested for a tirade‑18 post and a plot of 1,000 Sq. Yards in Gulshan‑e‑Iqbal, Karachi so that she could get over her financial difficulties as a widow. This letter was endorsed by the Prime Minister to Chief Minister Sind for doing the needful. Under the orders of the Chief Minister the appellant was offered the post of Planning Officer in Grade‑17 and her appointment orders were issued, dated 6th November, 1975. She, however, declined the offer and replied that she would accept the post if only it was upgraded to Grade‑

18. Meanwhile she again repeated her request to the Secretary to the Prime Minister. The Secretary again sent a D. O. letter to the Chief Minister enclosing her representation for Grade‑18 post for his sympa thetic consideration. The Government of Sind found it difficult to promote the appellant from Grade‑16 to Grade‑18 against the rules. She could not also be appointed by selection as a direct recruit because candidates for Grade‑18 posts could only be selected by the Public Service Commission. As a via media it was suggested that the post of Planning Officer in the Health and Social Welfare Department be upgraded from Grade‑17 to Grade‑18 and she was to be appointed in that post on purely ad hoc basis. These orders were passed by the Secretary, Health and Social Welfare Department on 17th March, 1977. Meanwhile a vacancy for four months occurred in grade‑18, consequent upon the grant of ex‑Pakistan leave for four months to Mrs. Amina Ghani, Principal Child Welfare and In Service Training Institute, Karachi. Orders dated 30th May, 1977 were accordingly issued appointing appellant to Grade‑18 on "ad hoc basis" Principal vice Mrs. Amina Ghani granted four months, leave. Amina Ghani however got her leave cancelled fearing change of posting on return. The appellant was then allowed to join as Deputy Director Social Welfare which post also in Grade‑18 had meanwhile fallen vacant but no formal orders were issued to her. This was done as temporary stop gap arrangement to enable her to draw her salary for the month of June. The post of Deputy Director Social Welfare Department was however "a promotion post" and the appellant could not be considered for regular appointment to the post on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness. She was a Grade‑16 Officer in the Social Welfare Department and her service record was not very happy. The. Director, Social Welfare, therefore, asked for her reversion. This was agreed to, and orders were issued posting Mr. S. A. H. Rizvi promoted on regular basis to Grade‑18 as Deputy Director, Social Welfare, reverting Mrs. Rafat Ara Sayeed, the appellant to her original post in Grade‑

16. These orders were passed by the Secretary, Health and Social Welfare Department on 20th August, 1977. The position therefore, is that the appellant was given ad hoc appoint ment in Grade‑18 during June, 1977,as stopgap arrangement without issue bf any formal orders promoting her. Appointment as Depu4y Director in Grade‑18 was purely on ad hoc basis. By order, dated 20th August, 1977 this stopgap arrangement was reversed promoting Mr. S. A. M. 'Rizvi, Senior Lecturer‑cum‑Liaison Officer, Social Welfare Directorate while the appellant was not considered eligible for promotion to Grade‑18 for that post. Feeling aggrieved by this order of reversion, after two months, the appellant made several representations to the Secretary, Health Department in the Government and even the Martial Law Administrator Zone `C' but the representations were turned down. She has accordingly preferred this service appeal. It has been argued by Mr. Arif Bilal for the appellant that the appel lant had not been reverted from Grade‑18 to Grade‑16 by a competent authority. That she bad been appointed under orders of the Chief Minister and she could therefore, be reverted by the Martial Law Administrator Zone C exercising powers of the Chief Minister. It. may however be pointed out that the Government of Sind had been trying to help the appellant who was a widow so that she should tide over her difficulties. The rules were against her and she could neither be pro moted from Grade‑16 to Grade‑18, nor appointed as direct recruit. Orders were therefore, issued for her appointment on "ad hoc basis" for four months in the leave vacancy of Mrs. Amina Ghani but even those orders did not materialise as Mrs. Amina Ghani did not actually proceed on leave. Under oral orders she was allowed to join as Deputy Director Grade‑18 as stopgap arrangement to enable her to draw her pay for month of June, but on regular promotion of Mr. S. A. H. Rizvi, duration of ad hoc appointment in Grade‑18 automatically expired. There was no need to issue any show‑cause notice to her or to refer her case for reversion to Martial Law Administrator Zone 'C'. She had not been taken up on regular basis but only on ad hoc basis in a leave vacancy and as she could not join the leave vacancy she was temporarily allowed to join equivalent post as stopgap arrangement only. She was accordingly reverted to her substantive post in Grade‑

16. Her reversion is not, therefore, in violation of any service rules. In a similar case decided by Sind High Court, Syed Zawwar Hussain v. Province of West Pakistan (P L D 1968 Kar. 693) where a person was appointed on ad hoc basis as stop gap arrangement and later he was reverted to his original post, it was held that ad hoc appointees cannot claim the higher post as a matter or right and their reversion is rot a reduction in rank. In the case of Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1969 Pesh. 299), the Government Servant had been promoted on ad hoc basis and he was reverted as his appointment was not approved by the Public Service Commission it was held that in the circumstances demotion was not reduction in rank necessi tating show‑cause notice. In the result the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed