1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER).‑‑ The appellant, M. Anis Qureshi, was inducted into Grade‑17 of the I.D.C. Accounts Group w.e.f. 6‑5‑1981. This was a belated induction into the I.D.C. which was through no fault of his. As a result of his representations, he was placed at serial No. 193 of the relevant seniority list as on 31‑5‑1981. There were other officers who though junior had been inducted into the I.D.C. earlier than him w.e.f. 12‑12‑1975 who were brought down at serial No. 194 and below. The immediate juniors of the appellant, in this case to mention only two, were Muhammad Bashir Ahmad (serial No. 194) and Makhdum Hussain Chaudhry both I.D.C. inductees of 12‑12‑1975 even though, actually, junior to the appellant.

2. The appellant was also promoted to Grade‑18 vide Auditor General's Office Order, dated 16‑5‑1981.

3. The appellant vide his representation, dated 20‑7‑1981 to the Secretary, Finance prayed that he be allowed promotion to Grade‑18 from the date his juniors were promoted on 26‑12‑1979 since he had been kept out of consideration through no fault of his and particularly because his claim of seniority against his juniors had been accepted and his name placed correctly above them. Further, correspondence ensued and finally the appellant was sent a copy of Auditor‑General's letter, dated 28‑7‑1982 (under a covering note of the Director‑General T & T's office, dated 12‑8‑1982). The said letter, dated 28‑7‑1982 is reproduced:‑ "No. 544‑ARC/17‑81 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF PAKISTAN GULBERG‑III, LAHORE. Date: 28th July, 1982. To The Director‑General, Telegraph and Telephones, Department, Islamabad. Sub: REQUEST FOR SANCTION OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO MR. MUHAMMAD ANIS QURESHI SR. ACCOUNTS OFFICER TELEGRAPH AND STORES, KARACHI. Please refer to the correspondence resting with this Office Memo. No. 465‑ARC/2‑31/81, dated 3‑11‑1981 on the above subject.

2. The Establishment Division have decided that antidating of promotion of Mr. Muhammad Anis Qureshi would not be appropriate as promotions take effect from the date of approval by the competent authority or from the date of assumption of charge whichever is later. He may please be informed accordingly.

3. Mr. Anis Qureshi may also be informed that he has already been assigned seniority in Grade‑18 in the gradation list of officers of Grade‑18 as on 31‑8‑1981 according to his seniority position in Grade‑17 (I. D. C.). Sd/ (M. HAMID HASAN) Dy. Auditor‑General (Admn.)."

4. Feeling aggrieved from the above order, the appellant came up in appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 10‑10‑1982. The appeal was admitted for regular hearing on 14‑11‑1982. It is, now, being disposed of by this order.

5. The respondents have raised the plea of limitation. The order against which the appellant has come in appeal was received by him on 29‑8‑1982. He should have come in appeal within 30 days there-from which fell due on or about 29‑9‑1982. That he came up before the Tribunal on 10‑10‑1982 makes his appeal time‑barred by about eleven days. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by medical certificates from the authorised medical attendants. The appellant was a patient of gall bladder and even though he was being treated as an outdoor patient, the medical certificates are indicative of the fact that he remained busy in various tests connected with his ailment from 27‑7‑1982 to 21‑9‑1981 and then two weeks rest from 21‑9‑1981 onwards. Since the delay has been explained to our satisfaction we condone the delay of eleven days and hold the appeal to be competent before us.

6. We heard the appellant as well as the learned State counsel. We also had the opportunity of perusing the relevant departmental record.

7. We have no doubt that the appellant has suffered greatly and through no fault of his; first due to his belated induction into the I.D.C. of the Accounts Group and then due to his delayed promotion to Grade‑18 which was a direct consequence of the late induction into the I.D.C. However, the error was corrected partly in that the seniority of the appellant was restored in Grade‑17 I.D.C.

8. The just culmination of this relief viz. restoration of seniority in Grade‑17 ought to have been the acceptance of appellant's promotion to Grade‑18 w.e.f. 26‑12‑1979 the date his juniors were promoted. This has been denied without any logic, The General Principles of seniority which are still in the field lay down that: "B. Departmental promotions. ‑‑(i) Officers who are approved by the Selection Board/D.P.C. for promotion to the higher grade on an earlier date shall rank senior to those who are approved on a later date, provided that:‑ (a) an officer eligible for promotion who is inadvertently omitted from consideration in the original reference and is superseded, when he is subsequently considered and approved for promotion, he will take his seniority with the original batch." (Estacode p.153)

9. The appellant has been allowed seniority in accordance with the above rule. However, since he has been kept away from holding the Grade‑18 post which he would have held had he not been treated in the manner in which he has been, he would be deemed to have been promoted to Grade‑18 w.e.f. 26‑12‑1979. His pay would be fixed accordingly and all the benefits as a result of fixation of such pay, would be available to him w.e.f. the said date.

10. No order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal allowed.