1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))

SAAD SAOOD JAN (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant in this appeal claims seniority over respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondent in the rank of Assistants. This appeal was first heard by the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Punjab on 17‑1‑1972 and accepted. However, one of the contesting respondents, challenged this decision of the said Tribunal in the High Court on the Writ side. The High Court set aside the decision of the Tribunal on the ground that one of the Members, who hail participated in the decision had already expressed his views when serving under the Provincial Government in the Services, and General Administrative Department. The appeal ‑as accordingly remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The Civil Services Appellate Tribunal has since been abolished, and by virtue of subsection (2) of section 10 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, this appeal has come before us for disposal.

2. Prof. Ashfaq Ali Khan was a party to the earlier decision of the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. He has not participated in the hearing of this appeal to avoid a possible objection of the nature which persuaded the High Court to set aside the decision of the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal.

3. The necessary facts which have a bearing on the questions raised in this appeal are as follows. The appellant joined service as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Chief Engineer‑cum‑Secretary to Government of the Punjab on 28‑11‑

52. The contesting respondents joined the same office in the same capacity on different dates falling after the appointment of the appellant. Thus as Junior Clerk the appellant was senior to the contesting respondents. They were all promoted as Senior Clerks on 2‑2‑1960.

4. On 14‑10‑55, the Province of the Punjab ceased to exist and became apart of the new Province of West Pakistan. In the new Province the Engineering Administration was reorganized and in this connection the office of the Chief Engineer‑cum‑Secretary was abolished. The new arrangement provided for the division of the Province into a number of regions, each under the charge of a Deputy Chief Engineer. For the purpose of policy making and cc‑ordination the Office of the Chief Engineer West Pakistan at Lahore was created.

5. So far as the subordinate services were concerned the re‑organization was to take place in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Integration Circular which stated "As regards the subordinate services, i.e. services other than those as a rule be constituted on a district or regional basis. The regions will correspond generally with jurisdictions of the regional Leads including the Commissioners." In pursuance of this decision the office of the Chief Engineer and the Regional Offices of the Deputy Chief Engineers were constituted into separate cadres.

6. Consequent upon the abolition of the office of the Chief Engineer cum‑Secretary to the Provincial Government and re‑organization of the subor dinate services, the appellant was transferred to the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer. Multan Region, whereas the contesting respondents were allocated to the office of the Chief Engineer West Pakistan. It is not the case of the appellant that he ever protested against this allocation.

7. In 1962, the Provincial Government framed the rule for governing the terms and conditions of the subordinate services attached to the Regional Offices and the office of the Chief Engineer. According to those Rules each Region was to have its own cadre. The promotions within the cadre were to be confined to the officials working therein. The result was that the appellant and the contesting respondents ceased to have any link with each other far now they belonged to the different cadres.

8. On 1‑5‑69, there was a reshuffling of the various cadres. As a result thereof the contesting of the respondents also got attached to Maltan Region.

9. The appellant was promoted as Assistant on 9‑1‑

61. Though this date was later changed to 1‑5‑62 but for the purpose of this appeal we shall take the date of his promotion as 9‑1‑

61. The contesting respondents ware actually promoted as Assistants on dates subsequent to 9‑1‑

61. However, by a notification issued on 1‑5‑69 they were given presumptive promotions from dates earlier than 9‑1‑

61. When we inquired for the reasons for these presumptive promotions the departmental representative explained that in the office of the Chief Engineer West Pakistan certain posts of Assistants bad become available from dates prior to 91‑61 and the contesting respon dents were adjusted against them.

10. The absorption of the contesting respondents in the Multan Region was by way of transfer. Their seniority vis‑a‑vis the Assistants who were already posted in the Multan Region has to be fixed in accordance with the continuous length of service as Assistants. Since their dates of presumptive promotions as Assistants are anterior in point of time to the date of promotion of the appellant as Assistant, they are entitled to rank senior to him.

11. As stated by the department the contesting respondents have been given presumptive promotions to the rank of Assistant on account of vacancies which were available in the office of the Chief Engineer West Pakistan, to which they v .ere attached. Since the appellant was at the relevant time working in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Multan Region, he was not entitled to get promotion in the rank of Assistant against a post of Assistant in the office of the Chief Engineer West Pakistan. Thus he can have no legitimate cause of grievance why the contesting respon dents have been promoted from dates earlier than that of his own. As already mentioned the appellant did not contest his allocation to Multan Region when officials junior to him were being posted in the office of the Chief Engineer where a larger number o6 promotion posts were available. He took his chance in Multan Region and the contesting respondents took theirs in the office of the Chief Engineer West Pakistan. He cannot now demand that the contesting respondents be deprived of the advantages that they gained by working in the office of the Chief Engineer.

12. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any force in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.