1977PLC[C (PLP)

Case No. 125 of 1974, decided on 8th November 1974 West Pakistan Police Department Ministerial Service (Range) Rules, 1964‑

Police Department, bound to enforce Rules and split joint cadre of ministerial service into ranges‑Range wise seniority lists of minis terial staff of Police Department directed to be prepared as required by Rules. Appellant in person Mr. Humayun for L‑G. Police, Punjab for Respondent No.

2. SAAD SAOOD JAN (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant has pleaded that under the Rules, 1 64 he should have been considered for promotion to the higher rank since the cadre of ministerial staff is range. wise. The West Pakistan Police Department Ministerial Service (Range) Rules, 1964, were promulgated on the 14th January, 1964. By sub‑rule (2 of Rule 1, they came into force at once. Under these circum stances the Police Department was bound to enforce these rules and split the joint cadre of the ministerial service into ranges. The range has been defined in the rules as the whole of the area under the charge of the Deputy Inspector. General. It was, therefore not difficult for the department to allocate the staff to various ranges, to meet the requirements of the rules. We find that the department has been very reluctant to change the State of affairs prevailing under 1933 Punjab Police Clerical Service Rules of various pleas have been put forward and the matter of the enforcement of 1964 rules has been kept pending. We direct that these rules be enforced and their requirements properly met; The learned counsel for the I.‑G. Police points out that respondent No. 1, Mr. Hassan Abbass Kazmi is senior to the appellant in the rank of Assistant and it is open to the Government to allocate him to the range in which the appellant is serving. In fact in their written plea the respondent department have also taken that stand. Nonetheless it is the legal right of the appellant to be considered for the determination of the seniority in the Range to which he belongs We direct that the Rangewise seniority lists of the ministerial staff of the Police Department be prepared and the appellant be shown at his proper place. Before parting with the case we might state that in view of their administrative problems the respondent department have been making tentative efforts to seek the amendment of the rules. It is, of course, open to them to do so, but to rely for departmental administration on these intentions, which have not found legal fulfilment for the last several years is not correct. We order as above. Action be taken on these orders within four months and a report be made to this Tribunal. Parties to bear their, own cost.