1984 PLP (C (PLC)

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Mr. Mazhar Mahmood Shairani has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the Notification, dated 8th December, 1980 whereby the proper place of seniority of the appellant was not fixed and the financial benefits attached to the grade had been withheld. 2. Appellant has impleaded Province of the Punjab through Secretary Education Department and Director of Education, Lahore Division, Lahore as respondents. 3. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that his date of promo tion be determined for the purpose of counting seniority and the respon dents be directed to fix the pay and to award him the arrears which so accrued to him. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Lecturer in the Government College. Muzaffargarh on the basis of selection made by the Provincial Public Service Commission and his name appeared at Serial No. 57 on the Seniority List of the Lecturers of the Lahore Region corrected upto 31st December, 1966. In 1970 a confusion crept up regarding domicile of the appellant and his promotion was so withheld. However, vide order dated 4th January. 1977 issued by respon dent No. 1 the domicile of the appellant in the Punjab was accepted. After the confusion was so resolved the appellant applied for determina tion of seniority and for resultant promotion. However, no response was made and in the meantime a notification ordering promotion of Lecturers in Grade‑18 was issued by the respondent Department on 29th March, 1977 in which the name of the appellant was not included. The appellant again made a representation within 9 days of the issue of the said notifica tion but the mistake was not rectified. On 8th December, 1980 a fresh promotion list was circulated and appellant's name appeared at Serial No. 14 but it was with a rider that he will get his original seniority with out any financial benefits. Hence this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney and had perused the record of this case inclu sive of the para-wise comments carefully with their assistance. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that a person whose name is not included for promotion due to omission on the part of the Department, he cannot be allowed to suffer when there is no fault on his part. The learned counsel has also referred to a letter from the Chief Secretary, Punjab to all the Heads of Departments in which it was directed that `if an official was wrongfully prevented from performing the duties the higher post he would be entitled to the arrears of his salary. The learned counsel has also referred to certain decisions of this Tribunal in which this Tribunal directed grant of financial benefits to those who were given pro forma promotion by the Government. 7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that an appeal before this Tribunal only lies for wrong fixation of seniority and not for fixation of seniority. It was argued that a relief so claimed by the appellant would only lie before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction and not before this Tribunal. 8. In the para-wise comments submitted by the respondent No. 2. It has been stated that the appellant's due seniority has been assigned to him by the Government but financial benefits would have only accrued to him if the Government had chooses to confer upon him pro forma promo tion and not otherwise. 9. We have given an anxious thought to the arguments given before us by the parties and find that the reliance placed by the appellant on the case of Muhammad Baqar Rizvi v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab. Education Department is misconceived. In the said case Muhammad Baqar Rizvi had been granted pro forma promotion and his financial benefits were withheld. This Tribunal came to the decision that once a pro forma promotion has been awarded to a person no condition can be placed to withheld financial benefits if so accrued to him. 10. We have examined the case of the appellant with .great care and find that his case for pro forma promotion is quite justified as his name was omitted due to the fault of the Government and confusion which sot arose on Government side and not for any particular reason which could have arisen for its super-session. In these circumstances we will strongly recommend to the Government to consider the case of appellant sympathe tically and redress his grievances at their own end. This Tribunal have no jurisdiction to site over the matter of promotion and cannot grant him the relief which he so desires. 11. The result is that we dispose of the appeal in the terms so mentioned above. However, parties would bear their own costs. A. E. Order accordingly.