1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).‑‑‑We are concerned, in this judgment, with the disposal of an appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, filed on 8‑11‑1988 by the appellant who is an Accountant in the Pakistan Railways Department.

2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant joined as a Lower Division Clerk in the Railways Accounts Branch on 18‑8‑1980. Subsequently, on his own application, he was selected as an Upper Division Clerk against direct recruitment quota in RNSP‑7 and was appointed as such on 5‑5‑1982. On 20‑10‑1982, he was declared successful in the Accounts Department (Part I) Examination held by the department in October, 1981 as provided in Appendix II of Pakistan Railways Code. By dint of having passed this examination, he was promoted as Head Clerk in BPS‑11 on 8‑11‑1983. Subsequently, on his own request made in application dated 22‑9‑1984, he was transferred as Stock Verifier and posted as such in Carriage and Wagon Depot, Pakistan Railways, Lahore on 17‑11‑1984.

3. Thereafter, he qualified the SRAS (Part II) Examination held in March 1985 at Lahore for further promotion as an Accountant in BPS‑

16. A seniority list of the candidates who were declared successful in this examination was circulated on 23‑9‑1985. The appellant's name was mentioned against S.No. 36 of this list. It was on the basis of seniority shown in this list that he was: promoted as an Accountant (BPS‑16) on 1‑2‑1986 and transferred to Sukkur Division where he reported for duty on 9‑2‑1986 to the Divisional Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur and was posted as an Accountant against an existing vacancy with effect from the same date.

4. A few months later, on 1‑6‑1986, the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Administration (respondent No. 3) modified the forementioned list and changed the appellant's seniority position relegating him from S.No. 36 to S.No. 39‑A by Office Order No. 208 (Annexure `L'). In consequence of this revision he was reverted as Stock Verifier by order dated 2‑6‑1986 with immediate effect and directed to report to SAO/Stores Lahore for posting in that capacity. He joined the new office in compliance and then on 16‑6‑1986 he was again promoted to officiate as an Accountant and posted on transfer at Pakistan Railways Carriage Factory, Islamabad.

5. After having exhausted the departmental remedy, he finally came to the Tribunal with the present appeal where it has been prayed that the impugned orders dated 1‑6‑1986, 20‑7‑1986, 30‑9‑1986/2‑10‑1986 and 29‑9‑1988 relegating the appellant in the seniority position below respondents Nos. 4 to 6 may be set aside and he may be replaced in his original position in the list with all consequential benefits.

6. It is an admitted position that respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were promoted to BPS‑11 on 20‑5‑1984, 7‑11‑1984 and 11‑11‑1984 respectively after the appellant had already been promoted to that grade on11‑1983. The gist of his case is that he was evidentially senior to these respondents and had been rightly shown against S. No. 36 of the list above their names and that modification of the list by respondent No. 3 was arbitrary, without jurisdiction and ab initio void. The sole question for determination arising out of the pleadings in this appeal is regarding the legality or otherwise of order dated 1‑6‑1986 relegating the appellant to a lower position in the seniority list.

7. It will be worth its while to take due notice of the manner in which the appellant's seniority position was adversely affected. Relevant portion of order dated 1‑6‑1986, which is the basic impugned order in this case, was to the following effect:‑‑ "OFFICE OF THE FINANCIAL ADVISER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE S.O.O. No. 208 Dated 1‑6‑1986 In part modification of this office S.O.O. No. 434, dated 23‑9‑1985 notifying the seniority of the candidates who qualified S.RA.S. examination (Accountant group) held in March 1985, the name of Mr. Tariq Mansoor appearing against item No. 36 is deleted. His name may now be inserted as item No. 39‑A below the name of Mr. Muhammad Hussain appearing against item No.

39. Authority: Dy. CAO/Admn. Orders dated 1‑6‑1986 at PP‑57 of file No. P/10/Admn/174/Pt‑II." 8.This was followed by order dated 2‑6‑1986 to the following effect:‑‑ "OFFICE OF THE F.A. AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE S.O.O. No. 214 Dated 2‑6‑1986. Consequent upon revision of seniority of candidates who qualified S.R.A.S. Examination (Accountant group) held in March 1985 circulated vide this office S.O.O. No. 434, dated 23‑9‑1985 and modified vide this office S.O.O. No. 208, dated 1‑6‑1986 placing the name of Mr. Tariq Mansoor Stock Verifier at item No. 39‑A of the said seniority list, i.e. below Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Stock Verifier appearing against item No. 39 who has not yet been promoted as Accountant, Tariq Mansoor Accountant, office of the DA.O./Sukkur is reverted as Stock Verifier with immediate effect. He should be spared immediately and directed to report to the SA.O./Stores, Lahore for posting as Stock Verifier substitute vice Mr. Tariq Mansoor will be posted later on. No joining time is allowed except for journey time. Authority: Dy. CA.O/Admn's orders at PP‑52 of File No. P/3/Admn‑I/Acctt/83."

9. A few days later, on 16‑6‑1986, he was again promoted as Accountant with the following order:‑ "Mr. Tariq Mansoor, Stock Verifier, Stores Accounts Branch, Lahore who is the senior most SRAS (Accountant Group) qualified hand, and awaiting promotion as 'Accountant, after having been cleared by the Departmental Promotion Committee and approved by the competent authority is promoted to officiate as Accountant and transferred and posted until further orders, in the office of the SAO/Carriage Factory, Islamabad, vice Mr. Muhammad Laeeq Siddiqui, Accountant, item No. 2 above."

10. He challenged the validity of respondent No. 3's order dated 1‑6‑1986 in his representation dated 19‑6‑1986 addressed to the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer Administration (respondent No. 2) which contained two prayers, The first was that his seniority position may be restored. Second, his reversion may be cancelled as illegal and he may be treated as having continued to serve as an Accountant with effect from 9‑2‑1986 with all consequential benefits,

11. It was on 20th of July, 1986, about a month after this representation had been filed, that respondent No. 2 passed the following order‑‑ "OFFICE OF THE FA. AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE S‑O.O. No. 276/Adorn‑I Dated 20‑7‑1986 The orders of reversion of Mr. Tariq Mansoor, Accountant, D.A.O./Sukkur issued vide this office S.O.O. No. 214, dated 2‑6‑1986 are withdrawn. He is allowed to continue in 'the capacity of Accountant (B‑l6) against the same post and is treated as transferred as Accountant and posted in SA.O./C.F's Office, Islamabad, already ordered vide item No. 3 of this office S.O.O. No. 227, date ., 16‑6‑1986. His revised seniority position as notified vide this office S.O.O. No.208, dated 1‑6‑1986 will remain unchanged and he will continue to remain junior to Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Stock Verifier (now Accountant D.A.O./Sukkur). M/s. Sadiq Ali (Accountant Divisional Accounts Officer/Quetta, Pervaiz Akhtar Siddiqui (Accountant, D.A.O./ Peshawar), S. Khawar Shah (Accountant, D.A.O./Rawalpindi) and Muhammad Hussar: (Accountant, D.A.O./Sukkur), who stand senior to Mr. Tariq Mansoor as per revised seniority notified vide this office S.O.O No.208, dated 1‑6‑1986, are promoted on pro forma basis as officiating, Accountant (B‑16) w.e.f. 9‑2‑1986, the date Mr. Tariq Mansoor, took over charge of the post of Accountant in the office of the D.A.O./Sukkur. The pro forma promotion of the said persons all being made only for the purpose of their fixation of pay only without any arrears. Authority: FA&CAO's orders at PP‑113 of File No. P/3,/Admg I/Acctt/83."

12. I do not feel any hesitation in holding that the record does not provide us with any legal support for the impugned order of 1‑6‑1986 and those whip followed in wake. There was hardly any justification in relegating the appellant to a position below that of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in the seniority list of 23‑9‑1985 and the impugned orders are arbitrary, unjust and ineffective against the appellant's rights he had acquired in consequence of promotion as an Accountant.

13. The list of 23‑9‑1985 (Annexure `I') was in respect of the seniority of candidates who had been declared successful in SRAS examination held in March 1985. It shows that the seniority assigned to the candidates was meant to serve as a basis for promotion as Accountant (BPS‑16). Under the list, there was a note to the effect that "the position assigned in the above seniority list may please be got noted by the staff concerned, and their representations in connection therewith, if any, may be sent to this office within a week from the date of issue of the seniority list". The note further said that any omissions or inaccuracies found in the list may be brought to the notice of respondent No. 3 within the prescribed period. It is an admitted fact that no representation was made against this seniority list either by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 or any other concerned officer. This would justify the inference that the seniority position assigned to the officers in this list was acceptable to them. It may be pointed out again that the concerned officers and respondents Nos. 4 to 6 did not file any representation against the list in spite of the awareness that this was going to serve as a basis for promotion as Accountant, and, as a matter of fact, it was in consequence that the appellant was promoted as such by order dated 1-2‑1986. The order of promotion specifically mentioned that he is SRAS Accountant Group qualified hand and is borne on the approved list for promotion as Accountant. Nothing else seems, under the circumstances, to have been required for a finding that the list should be presumed to have become final in so far as the parties are concerned.

14. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the basic impugned order dated 1‑6‑1986 was passed by the respondent No. 3 after any notice to the appellant. His name was suddenly brought down from S.No. 36 to S.No.39‑A below the name of Mr. Muhammad Hussain which was subsequently again brought up against S.No, 39 instead of S.No. 39‑A of the list. If objections were invited against the seniority list, of 23‑9‑1985, as they should have been, there was no reason why the appellant should not have been served with a notice to show cause why his name should not be taken to a lower position in the list, particularly after he had been promoted on the basis of this seniority list. The modification of the list by order dated 1‑6‑1986 was obviously arbitrary, unjust, in violation of the principles of natural justice and it could be effected, if otherwise legally possible, only after due service of notice to avoid an unheard condemnation

15. Order dated ‑2‑6‑1986 shows that the appellant was reverted as Stock Verifier merely on account of the facts that his senior namely Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Stock Verifier had not yet been promoted as an Accountant. This reversion, therefore, was evidently the result of the modification of the list, whereby the appellant was brought down from S.No. 36 to S.No. 39‑A. Since change in the list having been effected without due notice; was unjustified, the subsequent order dated 2‑6‑1986 demoting the appellant was equally unjustified. It may be mentioned here that the order of seniority appears from the record to have again been changed by a subsequent order which brought the appellant one step higher to S.No.39 above Mr. Muhammad Hussain, ostensibly on the ground that he had been appointed as Stock Verifier a day earlier on 13‑11‑108.1 Therefore, the real cause for his demotion was that respondents Nos. 4 to 6 who had become senior to him on account of change in the list had not yet bean prompted.

16. As already noticed, the appellant was again promoted as an Accountant on 16‑6‑1986 by which date respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were still serving in Grade‑If as Head Clerks. After he had represented on 19‑6‑1986 against order dated 1‑6‑1986 changing the list and order dated 2‑6‑1986 regarding his demotion, it was on 20‑7‑1986 that respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were promoted as Accountants. The following points in this order are pertinent: (a) It says that the orders of reversion of the appellant dated 2‑6‑1986 are withdrawn and that he is allowed to continue in the capacity of Accountant (BPS‑16) against the same post and is treated as transferred as Accountant and posted in SAO/C.F's Office, Islamabad, as already ordered by order dated 16‑6‑1986. The order further dictated that his revised seniority position as notified by order, dated 1‑6‑1986 would remain unchanged and he will continue to remain junior to Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Stock Verifier. It is difficult to understand how this could be possible. The withdrawal of order dated 2‑6‑1986 regarding the appellant's demotion would mean that it never existed, which is evident from the‑ fact that he was allowed to continue in the same capacity and against the same post and was treated as transferred in the same capacity to Islamabad. If that was the position, he could not have become junior either to Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Stock Verifier or m respondents Nos. 4 to 6 who had not been promoted by the date of appellant's promotion. (b) As already noticed before, the appellant was again promoted as Accountant by order dated 16‑6‑1986 by which time respondents Nos.4 to 6 had not been promoted. They were promoted subsequently by order dated 20‑7‑1986 on pro forma basis as officiating Accountants with effect from 9‑2‑1986, the date on which the appellant assumed charge of the post of Accountant in the office of D.A.O. The promotion of these respondents could not have legally been effected with retrospective effect. For support reliance may be placed on 1984 PLC (CS) 1720 and 1977 SCMR 509. (c) Order dated 16‑6‑1986 said that the appellant was the senior‑most SRAS (Accountant Group) qualified hand awaiting promotion as Accountant after having been cleared by the Departmental Promotion Committee and approved by the competent authority. If this was the position on 16‑6‑1986, we hardly find any legal justification for giving pro forma promotion to the respondents on 20‑7‑1986 with effect from 9‑2‑1986. It may be emphasized that even on 16‑6‑1986 when the respondents had not yet been promoted, the appellant was declared as senior most person in Grade‑11 awaiting promotion. This seniority could not have been adversely affected by a subsequent order meant to operate with retrospective effect. (d) As we find from the instructions given in S.No. 208(2) of the ESTACODE (1989 Edition), the intention underlying `pro forma promotions' is to protect the interests of the Government servants only in circumstances where they are required to serve away from their parent cadre because of definite requirement of public interest and not merely to suit their own interests. These instructions in view, the promotion of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 was against the basic idea of pro forma promotion and in actual fact they could not, even otherwise be promoted as such, particularly when no vacancies of Accountants have been shown to have existed on 9‑2‑1986, with the exception of one against which the appellant was promoted.

17. As it is clear from the record, the appellant was promoted as an accountant on the basis of seniority list of 23‑9‑1985, against which no objection had been filed by the contesting respondents and which had thus been treated as final. In pursuance of the order of promotion dated 1‑2‑1986 he reported for duty in the Office of Divisional Accounts Officer, Sukkur on 9‑2‑1986 and assumed charge of his functions in G.P.F. Section where he was posted. The order of promotion was passed by the competent authority on the basis of his seniority and it did' not suffer from any defect. The implementation of this order created a legal right in the appellant's favour to serve as Accountant. Since the order had taken legal effect, animus revertendi was not available to the respondents and the right created in the appellant's favour could not be taken away, much less in the manner it appears to have been done in this case. For an authority in support, reference may be made to the case of Raja Muhammad Nawaz's Government of Punjab (1981 SCMR 523).

18. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was promoted as Head Clerk in BPS‑11 on 8‑11-1983 before respondents Nos. 4 to 6 who were promoted as such on 20‑5‑1984, 7‑11‑1984 and 11‑11‑1984. There is also no dispute about the fact that the'' appellant was posted as Stock Verifier on his own request by order dated 19‑11‑1984 (Annexure `G'), after having been selected and recommended to work in that capacity, alongwith a few other officials, as a result of selection conducted by the Departmental Promotion Committee and approved by the FA& CAC) by order dated 7‑11‑1984 (Annexure‑R/III). In the remarks column of letter dated 7‑11‑1984, it was stated that the posting of these officials as Stock Verifiers shall be subject to the condition that they will not claim seniority as Head Clerks amongst the Stock Verifiers and will rank junior to all of them serving under SAO/Stores on the date of their posting.

19. In the background of these 'facts, the defence is that although respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were promoted to B‑11 after the appellant's promotion, they were senior to him in the cadre of Head Clerks, because his seniority was to be determined as a "Stock Verifier" from 13‑11‑1984, the date on which he assumed charge as such. It is pleaded that the dates of promotion of respondents Nos.'4 to 6 in BPS‑11 being earlier than 13‑11‑1984, they had been wrongly shown in the seniority list of 23‑9‑1985 as junior to him. It is also their case that the appellant's reversion became necessary because respondents Nos. 4 to 6 had become senior to him after modification of the list. They were accordingly given pro forma promotion for maintenance of their seniority, Position. It is contended that the Railways Accounts Department maintained separate cadres of Stock Verifiers, Head Clerks and Sectional Pay Masters in BPS‑11 and the seniority of the incumbents of these cadres is separately maintained. Since the appellant had become junior on appointment as Stock Verifier, he was wrong promoted as Accountant.

20. Even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments, that separate cadres of Stock Verifiers and Head Clerks were maintained at the relevant time in the Accounts Department, I see no reason for holding that the appellant became junior to respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in BPS‑11, on his posting as Stock Verifier on 13‑11‑1984 after having been selected for appointment as sup to fin a day earlier than 7‑11‑1984 as indicated by letter Annexure R/III. We have noticed that in the remarks column of this letter, it had been specifically laid down that his posting as such was subject to the condition that he. will not claim seniority as Head Clerk amongst the Stock Verifiers and will rank junior to those already serving in that capacity. It may be so, but even then he did not lose his seniority in BPS‑11 which had to be reckoned from 8‑11‑1983. I find no justification for holding that his selection and appointment as Stock Verifier adversely affected his seniority in the grade. The documents produced by the respondents in support of their case do not give us a definite and clear indication of the fact that separate cadres were maintained by the department. Even if they were so maintained, there is nothing in these documents to bear out a definite policy of promotion as Accountant (BPS‑16). It was conceded at the Bar that Head Clerks, Stock Verifiers and Sectional Pay Masters were actually eligible to be promoted to the next higher grade. If this be so, it is not possible to appreciate what could be the method of promotion and determination of seniority amongst the incumbents of these posts, for further promotion.

21. These considerations apart, I will feel no hesitation in holding that the appellant did not lose his seniority in Grade‑11 to which he was promoted on 8‑11‑1983 prior to respondents Nos. 4 to 6, on account of having been appointed as Stock Verifier, for seniority is to be reckoned from the date of entry into a grade. (PLD 1991 SC 514)

22. This aspect of the matter aside, the appellant has placed on record certain documents which clearly tend to establish that the Accounts Department was not maintaining separate cadres of Head Clerks and Stock Verifiers and that, in any case, seniority assigned to the appellant in the list of 23‑9‑1985 was in order and that it should not have been changed to his disadvantage. Reference may be made to the following documents:‑ (i) Annexure `FF is letter dated 10‑7‑1985 on the subject of combined seniority list of S.RA.S. qualified hands for promotion as Accounts Officers (B‑17) issued by the office of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer. It shows that combined seniority list of S.R.A.S. Accountants, I.C.Gs., I.S.Os and D.P.Ms was prepared for‑the period from 16‑8‑1973 to 10‑8‑1981, after the promulgation of Civil Servants Act, 1973, with a view to preparing a panel for promotion as Accounts Officer (B‑17). The letter said that the seniority list, had been prepared on the basis of date of entry into grade. (ii) The seniority list circulated by letter dated 10‑1‑1987 (Annexure `GG') was in respect of Audit and Accounts Assistants promoted to officiate for the period from 19‑5‑1983 to 80-7‑1986. The appellant's name is against S.No. 81 above the name of respondents who were mentioned against S. Nos. 105, 113 and 128 of the list. (iii) Annexure `HH' is letter, dated 23‑7‑1989 on the subject of combined seniority list of H.Cs, S.Vs, S.P.Ms and Cash Supervisors for the purpose of promotion as Accountants against 33% quota. This also tends to show that the cadre of Head Clerks and Stock Verifiers were not separate and combined seniority list of the incumbents of these posts was maintained for promotion to the higher grade of Accountant. (iv) Annexure `II' is letter, dated 1‑1‑1989 on the same subject addressed to the Senior Accounts Officer/Admn. in respect of the appeals of M/s. Anwar‑ul‑Haq and Shamas Din, Stock' Verifiers. It was recommended that their appeals may be considered sympathetically on the ground that they had been, working as Head Clerks (B‑11) at the time of their selection as Stock Verifiers and that their seniority should be considered from the date of entry into grade‑11. (v) Annexures `KK' and `LL' are copies of notifications published in P.W.R. Gazette, Extraordinary dated 20‑10‑1972. They show that Head Clerks, Stock Verifiers and Cash Supervisors were redesignated as Head Clerks as a result of revision of cadre structure and up gradation. (vi) Letter dated 5‑12‑1985 (Annexure `MM') is also in point. It shows that a decision was made by the Member (Finance), in supersession of existing orders that 33% posts in the cadre of Accountants, ICGs, I.SAs, D'.P.Ms and C.P.Is., etc., was to be filled in by selection from amongst a combined seniority list comprising unqualified senior Auditors, Audit and Accounts Assistants, S.P.Ms, Cash Supervisors and Stock Verifiers on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness. It was also decided that selection for promotion to B‑16 posts shall be made from this combined seniority list on the basis of seniority‑cum -fitness. (vii) Letter dated 2‑12‑1985 (Annexure `00') is on the subject of re -organisation of Junior and Senior Auditors in the Audit/Accounts Departments on the basis of report of the Pay Committee of 1983 duly approved by the President. Item No. 10 of this letter shows that the combined seniority list of Senior Auditors (B‑13) and Audit and Accounts Assistants (B‑11) was to be maintained on the basis of their regular affiliation in Scale B‑11 for the purpose of their promotion as Accountants against 33% unqualified quota. Item No. 14 of this letter says that promotion to B‑7, B‑11 and B‑13 in the case of Sectional Pay Masters, Stock Verifiers and Finger Print Inspectors will be governed according to the scheme laid down in the letter but they will continue to perform their specialised duties.

23. This was with regard to merits of the case. Before taking leave of the matter, I might deal with the respondents' objection regarding limitation. The relevant facts are that on 1‑11‑1986, a departmental appeal was addressed by the appellant to respondent No.l who was the competent authority. It was followed by the reminders dated 11‑5‑1987, 15‑10‑1987 and 27‑2‑1988. The departmental appeal was rejected on 29‑9‑1988 and the fact of rejection was conveyed to him under covering letter dated 6‑10‑1988 received by him on 9‑10‑1988. The present appeal filed on 8‑11‑1988 is within time from the date of communication of the order of rejection.

24. The only point which requires determination is whether departmental appeal dated 1‑11‑1986 was within time. The first impugned order changing the appellant's seniority position was passed on 1‑6:1986 and in consequence he was reverted as Stock Verifier by the impugned orders of 2‑6‑1986 and 3‑6‑1986. He was again promoted as Accountant by order dated 16‑6‑1986. Irrespective of this promotion, however, he was not satisfied with the earlier order of his reversion as a result of change in the seniority list and without losing any time he addressed an appeal to respondent No. 2 on 19‑6‑1986. On this appeal, he passed the impugned order of 20‑7‑1986 whereby the earlier order of 2‑6‑1986 regarding reversion was withdrawn, without restoring his original seniority position and granting pro forma promotions to respondents Nos. 4 to 6 with effect from 9‑2‑1986, with the sole purpose of making them senior to him as Accountants. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 20‑7‑1986, the appellant filled the requisite departmental appeal on 13‑6‑1986 but addressed it again to respondent No. 2 under a bona fide mistake that he was the competent authority. Instead of forwarding it to the competent authority, respondent No.2 rejected it by order dated 30‑9‑1986/ 2‑10‑1986 with the finding that the seniority assigned to the appellant by order dated 1‑6‑1986 was correct. This ultimately led him to the final departmental appeal of.1‑11‑1986 addressed to the competent authority, mention whereof has already been made. I am of the considered view that under the aforementioned circumstances, delay in filing the departmental appeal should be condoned in the interests of justice particularly when there is nothing in the aforementioned facts to give even the slightest indication of any deliberate lapse or carelessness on the part of the appellant. The record shows that he had been quite vigilant in pursuing all possible remedies and it cannot be said that he either slept over his rights or did .not care to vindicate them. Considering that all laws are made only to promote the ends of justice and that the law of limitation is meant only to penalise indolence and deliberate carelessness, delay in filing the departmental appeal is condoned, moreso when the ultimate departmental appeal was decided by the competent authority on merits.

25. The appeal is accordingly accepted and the impunged orders dated ‑6‑1986/2‑6‑1986, 20‑7‑1986, 30‑9‑1986/2‑10‑1986 and 29‑9‑1988 are set aside and the appellant is restored to his original seniority position in the list of 23‑9‑1985 with all consequential benefits. There will be no order as to costs. Parties should be informed accordingly.

26. SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH, CHAIRMAN: ‑‑I agree. A.A./695/Sr.F Appeal accepted.