2015 PLP 836 (SCMR)

IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.

This appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment dated 24-7-2013 passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal whereby the appeal filed by the respondent Shoukat Ali was allowed and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Yard Master (BS-9).

2. Facts briefly stated are that respondent No. 1 Shoukat Ali was appointed as Shunting Porter (BS-6) on 9-12-1986 and this category is known as Traffic Class-IV Staff. In this category among the Shunting Porter, Points-men, Shunting Masters, Cabin-Men are also included. To fill the vacant posts of Assistant Yard Master (BS-9) the Department asked the Traffic Class-IV Staff to give their willingness to promotion as AYM and thereafter the willing persons were directed to appear for training at Pakistan Railway Academy, Lahore. The respondent No.1 attended the said course and obtained 2nd position whereas respondent No. 2 obtained 16th position. The respondent on the basis of merit was promoted as AYM by letter dated 23-10-2010. However, the same was withdrawn on 25-4-2010 without giving effect. Thereafter the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Service Tribunal, which was allowed and the respondent was promoted vide order dated 6-6-2011. However, his promotion was again withdrawn vide notification dated 26-4-2012. The respondent then challenged the said order before the learned Service Tribunal, which stood allowed. Hence this appeal by the Department.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant who is assisted by Law Officer of the Railway Department and have gone through the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that respondent No. 1 is junior according to the combined seniority list of Class IV Staff who have qualified P-14 Course for promotion as AYM (BS-9) and that according to Rule 611 of the Railway Personnel Manual, the seniority has to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment.

4. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.

1. We have been informed by the Court Associate that he has taken the brief back from his learned counsel. In such a situation, we have no option but to proceed with the case on merits.

5. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that he be given promotion on the basis of merit pursuant to letter No. 267-G/161-III(E-VI) dated January, 1965, wherein it has been held that "Seniority of Class IV Staff after passing P-14 Course is being determined in accordance with para 1(d), section VI, page 52 of Advance Chapter No, 1". According to Para 1(d), section VI of Advance Chapter No. 1 seniority of certain cadres mentioned therein shall be reckoned according to the order of merit obtained by them in the qualifying examination. However, we have found that the letter on which the respondent No. 1 was relying was of a prior date i.e. of the year 1965 and Para 1(d), section VI of Advance Chapter No. 1 was meant for new entrants. The case of the respondent is distinguishable. He is serving in the Department and for the in-service staff, courses are held for further promotion. According to Rule 611 of the Railway Personnel Manual, 1982, "the combined seniority list of staff belonging to more than one category or more than one unit in the same category who are eligible for promotion to higher grade post shall be reckoned from the date of regular appointment to a post in the eligible grade (excluding officiating period against leave vacancies other than L.P.R. or under local arrangements made to suit administrative convenience)." Further Rule 433 of the Railway Personnel Manual stipulates that "senior staff who, on the basis of seniority, become eligible for being sent to the Walton Training School to qualify themselves in promotion courses, passing of which is a pre-requisite condition for consideration for promotion to higher grade posts, should not be allowed to be superseded by their juniors." Respondent No.1 is at serial No. 9 of the seniority list prepared for further promotion to AYM. In these circumstances, the Department has rightly withdrawn the order of promotion of the respondent No. 1.

6. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. We have been informed by Mr. Mujahid Hashmi, learned Law Officer for the Railway Department that persons mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 6 of the seniority list have already been promoted whereas person at Serial No.8 has since been retired. According to him two more posts are available and the case of respondent No.1 along with Mr. Gulzar Masih, who is at Serial No.7 for further promotion is in process and they will be promoted in due course after completing all formalities. The Department is directed to expedite the matter and conclude the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. MWA/D-1/SC Appeal allowed.