1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

"The Governor is pleased to constitute, with immediate effect, the Sindh Price Stabilisation Board, Its composition, functions and powers shall be as under: (1) Development Commissioner, Sindh. Chairman (2) Secretary, Planning & Development Department. Member (3) Secretary, Industries Commerce and Mineral Resources Department. Member (4) Secretary Agriculture, Food & Cooperation Department. Member (5) Director of Industries, Sindh. Member (6) Director of Food, Sindh Member (7) Chief Industries, Section, Planning and Development Department. Member/Secretary FUNCTIONS & POWERS. (1) To declare commodities, according to the needs and circumstances, as essential commodities. (2) To keep -under constant view, the supply and distribution position of essential commodities, take necessary measures to minimise profiteering and maintain reasonable price at both wholesale and retail level and to communicate with the Government of Pakistan in that behalf, whenever necessary. (3) To order submission and collection of data relating to production, purchase, stocks, sales and cost structure of essential commodities. (4) To issue directives considered appropriate in the case of selected essential commodities to prevent arbitrary price rise. The Planning and Development Department shall function as Secretariat of the Board. The Governor is further pleased to declare the Director of Industries, Sindh as Controller General of Prices who shall exercise all powers under the Essential Articles Control Act, 1958 as amended from time to time." It would appear that Board was set up by an administrative order. It was not a creature of law. The powers and functions assigned to the Board were only confined to keeping a vigilant eye on essential commodities so as to ensure their availability at reasonable prices. For carrying out its functions, the Board was made entirely dependent upon the P & D Department. The Board was not invested with powers to recruit officers and staff for its own requirements. Instead the P & D Department was to act as Secretariat of the Board. In other words officers and staff of the P&D Department had to man the Board. Thus, the officers and staff appointed/posted in the Board were interchangeable with those of the P&D Department. Apart from above the post of Economic Analyst was not only created by the P&D Department but also the funds required for it were obviously provided, as part of the budget of the said Department. Even if the amount required for the Board was earmarked in the budget, independently of the budget allocations of the P&D Department, yet such action by itself would not render the Board as independent body. It is also not the case of the private respondent that the Board was an independent organization. All that he has said is that it was a separate entity. Of course it acted as a separate institution to perform the specified functions but not as an independent or autonomous body. From the above appraisal we are convinced that the Board did not enjoy any independent or autonomous status, though it was kept as separate body so that it could devote its undivided attention to the function entrusted to it. By such separation the Board could not be held to be independent of P&D Department. Since the Board had no power to create posts or recruit officers/staff, against any such parts, the P&D, Department was obviously performing this function for the Board. Consequently we are of the view the posts created for the Board and officers and staff appointed against them basically belonged to the P&D Department. Accordingly we have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with the view taken in the impugned order. Since the Board had no independent or autonomous existence and- was part of the P&D Department the post of Economic Analyst created for the Board actually belonged to the said Department. The appellant's appointment to such post was in the nature of only a transfer from post of Research Officer (Grade-17) to the post of Economic Analyst (Grade-17) within the same Department. By the time he was posted as Assistant Chief in the P&D Department, he had already heen regularized in the post of Economic Analyst in equivalent Grade-18. His that posting was also nothing more than a simple transfer. Therefore, we see no legal flaw in the appellant's appointment, first, as Economic Analyst in the Board by transfer from the equivalent post of Research Officer in the P&D Department, and later as Assistant Chief in the said Department by retransfer again from equivalent post of Economic Analyst in Board, particularly when as pointed out above the Board had no independent existence but was a part of the P&D Department. No doubt as required by rule 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, separate seniority lists were to be drawn up for the posts of Economic Analyst and Assistant Chief. Since the appellant had been inducted in the post of Assistant Chief by transfer w.e.f. 12th July, 1976, much before the publication of the seniority list on 16-5-1978 his name could appear in the said list of course as Assistant Chief. As pointed out above his period of probation in that capacity had been terminated earlier than that of the private respondent. Consequently he became eligible for confirmation before. The said respondent and hence was senior to the private respondent even as Assistant Chief. For above reasons there was absolutely no legal justification to reopen the question of inter se 'seniority between the appellant and the private respondent. Accordingly we allow the appeal with no order as to costs and direct that the appellant's seniority assigned to him in the seniority list issued on 16-5-1978 stands restored. M.Y.H./235/Sr.S Appeal allowed.