1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Hafiz Tariq Naseem for the State. Syed Muhammad Safi for Respondent No.

4. Date of hearing : 21st September, 1982. MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).‑The case of the appellant is that he was working as Assistant Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, in the Pakistan Post Office Department in October, 1976, when he was approved for promotion to Grade‑16 by the concerned Departmental Promotion Committee. He was accordingly vide order, dated the 15th June, 1977, promoted to Grade‑16 and was posted as Postmaster (Savings) Peshawar G. P. O. with effect from 31st May, 1977. Thereafter, however, the appellant received a show‑cause notice, dated 27th August, 1977 issued by respondent No. 2, the Director‑General, Pakistan Post Office, calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be demoted for the reason that his date of continuous officiation as Assistant Superintendent was wrongly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 9th April, 1970. The appellant, in reply to the said show‑cause notice, pleaded that if his date of continuous officiation in Grade‑1 I was wrongly conveyed as 9th April, 1970 then it was the fault of the Postmaster General's Office and he could not be blamed for that. The appellant further submitted that even on the basis of his correct date of continuous officiation in Grade‑11 (23rd January, 1971) he was entitled to be retained in Grade‑16 as the two other officials namely, Messrs Nusrat Ali Siddiqi and Muhammad Nawaz were also promoted to Grade‑16 along with him and, according to the appellant, they are junior to him. The appellant meant that if at all the demotion of an official promoted along with the appellant is necessary then one of the said two officials should be demoted and not the appellant. The appellant's contention was, however, turned down by the Department and he was demoted from Grade‑16 to Grade‑11 vide order, dated 2nd October, 1977. The appellant appealed against the said demotion order, which was also rejected by respondent No. I, the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Communication. The appellant then filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

2. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Saeed Ansari, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Hafiz Tariq Naseem, State counsel, for the respondent‑department and have also seen the relevant record. It transpired that in a combined seniority list of Grade‑11 officials place before the Departmental Promotion Committee for selection of the candidates to be promoted to Grade‑16, the appellant's name appeared at serial No. 28 and his date of continuous officiation in Grade‑11 was wrongly recorded to be the 9th April, 1970. The Departmental Promotion Committee considered the candidates whose name appeared up to serial No. 33 in the combined seniority list. The appellant alongwith the other fourteen candidates was found fit for promotion by the Depart mental Promotion Committee and on approval by the competent authority he was promoted to Grade‑16 with effect from 31st May, 1977. Thereon some officials represented that the date of continuous officiation of the appellant was wrongly shown in the combined seniority list as 9th April, 1970 and in fact the correct date was 23rd January, 1971. On verification this allegation was found to be correct. A reference was, therefore, made to the Departmental Promotion Committee to examine the confidential records and service particulars of the officials appearing in the said combined seniority list from serial No. 34 to serial No. 38 an give its opinion whether it would have recommended the appellant for promotion to Grade‑16 had it known that his position in the combined seniority list was 37th and not 28th. The Committee unanimously opine that it would not have recommended the appellant for promotion to Grade‑16 if his correct date of continuous officiation was then shown in the combined seniority, list. The Committee, therefore, recommended that the appellant be demoted from Grade‑16 to Grade‑11 and in hi place Mr. Abroad Din Bajwa, a candidate appearing at serial No. 33 in the combined seniority list, be promoted to Grade‑16.

3. The above facts and circumstances clearly show that the appellant was wrongly recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to Grade‑16 on the basis of incorrect date of his continuous officiation. It is absolutely immaterial as to whether the appellant was or was not responsible for incorrectly entering of his date of continuous officiation in Grade‑I I in the combined seniority list. On the basis o that incorrect entry, in our firm view, the appellant was wrong recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to Grade‑16 and when this omission came to the notice of the concerned departmental authorities, they were justified and correct in demoting him to Grade‑

11. Thus, the appellant's contention that his demotion is not justified as his date of continuous officiation in Grade‑1l was incorrectly recorded due to the fault of the official concerned and not of his, is unsustainable.

4. The appellant's stand that Mr. Nusrat Ali Siddiqi was junior to him is also found to be baseless as we have satisfied ourselves on perusal of the record that he (Nusrat Ali Siddiqi) was rightly given seniority in Grade‑11 from 29th June, 1970. The reference by the appellant to another case of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz is also totally irrelevant because the said Nawaz was a Stenographer in Grades‑11 and 14 respectively from 11th December, 1952 and 14th December, 1973. He was also rightly promoted to Grade‑16 in accordance with the rules and policy relating to the promotion of Stenographers to Grade‑

16. The contention of the appellant, in this respect, also stands repelled.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.