1985 PLP (C (PLC)

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑ Manzoor Masud Tamanna, Chief Officer, Zilla Council, Sahiwal has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore, Ch. Ghulam Sarwar, Chief Officer, Jhang and Ijaz Hussain Malik, Local Government Board. Lahore, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned seniority list issued by respondent No. 1 dated 28th February, 1982 and the final order, dated 13th September, 1984 be set aside and he be declared senior to contesting respondents 2 and 3. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service under the Local Council Service in the year 1965 on (16th July, 1965) whereas the contesting respondents Nos. 2 and 3 joined service on 4th February, 1967 and 4th October, 1967, respectively. Consequently the contesting respondents were correctly shown junior to the appellant in the seniority list of officers of L. C. S. in N. P. S. 17. In the year 1972, the appellant was retired under M. L. R. 114. He filed appeal before the. Review Board set up under M. L. R. 23 of 1977, the appellant was re‑instated in service in the year, 1978 and resumed service in N. P. S. 17 at his original place. On his re‑instatement appellant was promoted to N. P. S. 18 in the year, 1980. The appellant immediately on his promotion to N. P. S. 18 made an application dated May, 1980 in which he requested that in view of the provisions of Rules and the Policy of Government appellant's basic seniority vis‑a‑vis contesting respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in N. P. S. 17 may be maintained in N. P. S. 18 as well because appellant was never considered alongwith two respondents and he was never superseded by them at any stage. The respondent No. 1 issued seniority list of officers N. P. S. 18, vide letter, dated 28th February, 1982 in which appellant was shown junior to the contesting respondents. The appellant submitted a representation against it on 4th April, 1982 and followed by reminders dated 28th June, 1983 and 9th October, 1983. The said representation has now been rejected by respondent No. 1 by final order, dated 13th September, 1984. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have attended to the arguments advanced by respondents who appeared in person. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to the Municipal committees and Local Council Service Rules, 1963, the earlier promotion of a junior officer does not affect the seniority rights of senior officer unless such senior officer is superseded. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the case of the appellant, he was never superseded by the contesting respondents therefore, he has right to claim seniority over them in accordance with the rules so cited above. For this he has relied on the various judgments of this Tribunal particularly the judgment delivered in the case of Syed Kabir Hussain Shah and others v. Secretary, S & G. A. D. (1983 P L C (C. S.) 1231). Muhammad Ashraf v. Secretary, Communication and Works and others, vide judgment, dated 14th April, 1984 and in case Ahmad Ali Jaspal v. I.‑G. Police vide our judgment, dated 26th August, 1984 and in case of Kh. Muhammad Yusaf and Sh. Anwar Latif decided on 23rd January, 1985, respectively. 6. On the other band learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of, the Department and have resisted the claim of the appellant that the impugned seniority list is strictly in conformity with the policy of the Central Government which requires that in case an officer is re‑instated under M. L. O. 23, his seniority, on promotion to the next higher grade, be fixed from the date of promotion and no benefit of basic seniority, as allowed under the normal rules be extended to them. The contesting respondents also adopted the comments so advocated/advanced by then learned District Attorney. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the judgments delivered in the case of Syed Kabir Hussain Shah and others and reproduced in case No. 676/960 of 1984 and 686/959 of 1984 Kh. Muhammad Yusaf and Sh. Anwar Latif, decided on 23rd January, 1985 fully applicable to the case of the appellant and may be read as form part of this judgment. 8. In the light of the above we hold that the appellant would be senior to the respondents, therefore, we accept the appeal set aside the impugned seniority list, dated 28th February, 1982, in so far as the appellant and the contesting respondents are concerned and final order, dated 13th September, 1984. However, there will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal accepted.