1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHARY (MEMBER).‑‑M/s. Muhammad Sardar, Khushi Muhammad, Iftikhar Ahmed, Muhammad Afzal, Saleem Ahmad, Muhammad Sharif, Maqsood Ahmad, Drawing Masters, Muhammad Shall, Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Sabir and Muhammad Amin, T.Is. have made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein they have impleaded the District Education Officer (Male), Bahawalnagar, Director of Education (Schools), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellants have prayed that the impugned orders dated 26‑6‑1983/2‑7-1983 (Annexure `F') and 10‑9‑1983 (Annexure `G') be set aside and earlier orders dated 30‑12‑1982, 16‑2‑1983 and 19‑6-1983 (Annexures `C', `D' and `E') awarding selection grade to the appellants w.e.f. 1‑7‑1982 be restored.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of Government Notification the appellants who were working as Drawing Masters/P.T.Is. in grade of N.P.S. 8 were awarded selection grade and were placed in N.P.S. 11 vide order dated 30‑12‑1982 of respondent No. 1 (Annexure `C') for appellants Nos. 1 to 4, order dated 16‑2‑1983 (Annexure `D') for appellants Nos. 5 to 8, order dated 19‑6‑1983 (Annexure `E') for appellants Nos. 9 to

11. The mentioned orders Annexures `C', `D' and `E' were in favour of the appellants which were duly implemented and acted upon. The appellants were paid the arrears of pay w.e.f. 1‑7‑1982 till 1983. However, the Finance Department issued a revised order dated 26‑6‑1983 and in the light of the said order the respondent District Education Officer (Male), Bahawalpur, issued orders dated 26‑6‑1983/3‑7‑1983 and 10‑9‑1983 whereby the selection grade awarded to the appellants was withdrawn w.e.f. 1‑7‑1982 as they had been found ineligible for the award of selection grade according to the revised decision of the Finance Department. The appellants submitted appeals to the respondent No. 2, i.e. Director of Education (Schools), Bahawalnagar Division, Bahawalpur. Although the period of 90 days has elapsed but no decision of their appeals was conveyed to the appellants. Hence they made this appeal within next 30 days. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e. Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Ghulam us Syeddain, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that this case is identical and on all fours with the case decided by this Tribunal reported as 1986 P L C (C.S.) 202, in case of Abdul Salam Saeed and six others. Keeping in view the above decision given by this Tribunal, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellants that this appeal be accepted on the same precedent.

6. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department in extenso and has resisted the same on the ground that the appellants are not eligible to the selection grade, keeping in view the revised order dated 26‑6‑1983 issued by the Finance Department. Hence the appellants have no grievance at all and the impugned orders are valid and lawful orders.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the judgment given by this Tribunal in Case No. 883/1172. of 1984, decided on 15‑4‑1985 and reported as 1986 P L C (C.S.)

202. The operative paras. 7 and 8 of this judgment are reproduced below:‑ "

7. After hearing both the parties we have perused our own judgment dated 7‑4‑1984 and find that the facts are identical with the present case and this Tribunal came to the following decision:‑ That in both those cases the Tribunal has taken the view that once an order is duly implemented, acted upon and valuable right of salary and appointment accrued in favour of the civil servants then it is not within the powers of the Government to rescind/withdraw such orders: It was further observed:‑ "That the selection grade to the present appellants were granted on a formula criterion as decided by the Government, hence they were awarded selection grade on the criterion laid down by the Government in the year 1982. If there was some later decision by the Government for the grant of selection grade on the basis of the combined seniority, through a later decision cannot take away vested rights of appellants which were given to them under valid decision of the Government and orders of the competent authority." "

8. In the light of the above, I, am of the considered opinion that the appeal of the appellants is liable to succeed in view of the judgment' of this Tribunal mentioned in the earlier part of my judgment delivered on this issue and which is still in field."

8. Resultantly keeping in view the above facts the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders dated 26‑6‑1983/2‑7‑1983 and 10‑9‑1983 are set aside anti the earlier orders dated 30‑12‑1982, 16‑2‑1983 and 19‑6‑1983 awarding selection grade to the appellants are restored. There is no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties. A.A./249/Sr. P Appeal accepted.