1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant, an employee of department of Agriculture has preferred this appeal against the order of reversion from Grade‑16 to Grade‑5 under the following circumstances :‑ The appellant was appointed as Field Assistant in Grade‑5 in the Agriculture Department on 17th November, 1958. In the year 1976 his services were placed on deputation with the Cotton Maximisation Project under the Pakistan Central Cotton Committee. While on deputation he was promoted on ad hoc basis by the borrowing department as Agriculture Assistant in Grade‑13 on 2nd March, 1978. This was done with the approval, of the parent department. Meanwhile, the appellant's grade was raised to Grade‑16 as sanctioned by the P. C. C. C. This was also con firmed by the Director, Agriculture, Sind. Thereafter retrenchment was effected in the borrowing department and the service of the appellant was placed at the disposal of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Khairpur by notification, dated 10th March, 1981. During the period of deputation of the appellant the Field Assistants who were junior to him and had similar educational qualifications were promoted as Agriculture Officers in Grade‑17 on ad hoc basis. On rever sion of the appellant the Director of Agriculture, therefore, recommended his case for promotion as Agriculture. Officer against vacant post. Acting on this recommendation a notification was issued by Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, dated 9th July, 1981 absorbing the appellant and four others in the parent department as Agriculture Officers on their last pay drawn in Grade‑16 on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till their cases were processed for promotion as Agriculture Officer, Grade‑17 through departmental promotion committee. Under the said notification the appellant was posted as Agriculture Officer. Jacobabad, by another notification, dated 13th July, 1981. The notification, however, remained of‑six months until then no further action was taken to convene any meeting of the Promotion Committee or to consider the continuation of the appellant and others on ad hoc basis. The result was that by subsequent notification, dated 7th January, 1982 the appellant was reverted to the post of Field Assistant, Grande‑5, although, his juniors continued to remain as Agriculture Officers, Grade‑

17. The appellant then filed a departmental appeal against his reversion which was dismissed by an order dated 18th July, 1982. He accordingly preferred this service appeal before the Tribunal. It has been argued by Syed Naseer‑ud‑din on behalf of the appellant that the question involved 'in this appeal is not that of promotion of the appellant as Agriculture Officer, Grade‑17, but that of his right to be con sidered for promotion. The question of fitness or otherwise ‑for promotion, therefore, does not arise. The other eight junior Officers who held the post of Agriculture Officers on ad hoc basis, continue to do so and they do not hold the special qualification prescribed for initial recruitment of candi dates as Agriculture Officer. This position is also clear from the circular of the Finance Department dated 14th September, 1978 that the specified qualifications were meant for the new entrants while the persons appointed to the post by promotion were to be allowed N. P. S.‑17 as personal to them. The position is, therefore' rather anomalous. Officers junior to the appellant holding no higher qualifications continue to retain their promo tions as Agriculture Officers Grade‑17, though, the appellant after having been absorbed as Agriculture Officer and allowed personal pay in Grade‑16 has been ordered to revert in Grade‑5 without any fault and for no apparent reason. It has been admitted by t6 learned A. A.‑G. that the appellant has not been considered for promotion to Grade‑17 even after issue of notification absorbing him as Agriculture officer an his personal pay till his regular promotion to Grade‑

17. This position is also admitted in the written statement. The executive orders are required to be just and reasonable, and equal treatment should be given to all officers similarly placed, to avoid any semblance of discrimination. T‑he case of the appellant, therefore, should have been considered for promotion on ad hoc basis as in the case of his juniors. It would appear to he a case of apparent injustice if, a senior Field Assistant is reverted to Grade‑5 while his juniors continue in Grade‑17 even on ad hoc basis. The position would, however, be different if the appellant is also considered afterwards for regular promotion alongwith ad hoc promotees and all are judged together in respect of their academic qualifications and other merits In the result the appeal is allowed only to the extent of the right of the appellant for being considered for promotion as Agriculture Officer, Grade‑17 in the same manner as his juniors, who have since been promote on ad hoc basis. No order is made as to costs. A.E. Appeal allowed.