1983 PLP 34 (SCMR)

M. S. H. QURESHI, J.‑The Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, by this petition seeks leave to appeal from the order dated 21‑9‑1981 passed ‑6y the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the appeal of respondent Ashfaq Ahmad had been accepted.

2. Ashfaq Ahmad respondent, who was Sub‑inspector in the Special Branch, was not included in List `F' prepared on 18‑12‑1973 (effective from 15‑12‑1973) for the reason that he needed more grounding in executive police work, especially as S. H. O. He made a representation in this regard but the same was rejected on 12‑1‑1974. He was ultimately brought on List 'F' on 18‑5‑1975 and promoted as Inspector on 11‑7‑1975. By order dated 10‑4‑1979 Shah Mahmood Inspector, who had been promoted alongwith Ashfaq Ahmad but had been placed junior to him, was assigned post facto seniority by ante‑dating his entry into List `F' with effect from 15‑12‑1973. Ashfaq Ahmad, thereupon, made a representation for giving him similar benefit but the same was rejected on 29‑7‑1980, which rejection was communicated to him on 4‑3‑1981. He then filed the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that this service in the Special Branch should have been counted as executive police work by virtue of Rule 13‑14 (3) of the Police Rules as also in view of the Tribunal's judgment in Iftikhar Ahmad Butt v. L‑G. P. (Appeal No. 128/614 of 198800), decided on 15‑2‑1981 and declared that he "will be deemed to have been admitted in List `F' w. e. f. 15‑12‑1973, and as a consequence will be given his due seniority vis‑a‑vis the contesting respondents."

3. Mr. M. M. Saeed Beg, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the appeal had been field beyond time, that the appeal was barred by proviso (b) to section 4 (1) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) inasmuch as it related to the question of determination of fitness to promotion and that the Tribunal had misread the I.‑G.'s order as regards consideration of the service of Ashfaq Ahmad under the Crimes Branch. The point of limitation has not been dealt with by the Tribunal, perhaps, because it had not been pressed. In any case, his cause of grievance arose on. 10‑4‑1979 when Shah Mahmood's entry in List" `F' was ante‑dated, whereafter he filed a representation, and upon its rejection which had been communicated to him on 4‑3‑1981, he had moved the Tribunal on 18‑3‑1981. The contention, therefore, can neither be permitted to be raised nor has it otherwise any basis. We are also not impressed by the contention that the appeal preferred by Ashfaq Ahmad impinged upon the provision of proviso (b) to section 4 (1) of Act IX of 1974, for his grievance basically was against discrimination qua his junior Shah Mahmood. The third point relating to misreading of evidence has equally no substance because although the Additional I.‑G. in his order dated 24‑11‑1973 had referred to Ashfaq Ahmad's service in the Special Branch but he had not given any weight to it which he was required to do under Rule 13.14 (3) and this is what the Tribunal had taken exception to. The order dated 10‑4‑1979, whereby Shah Mahmood had been assigned ante‑dated seniority, a copy of which has been furnished at page 32 of the paper book, does not give any reason, nor have we been furnished with the distinction that was made between the cases of Shah Mahmood and Ashfaq Ahmad in the matter of ante‑dating of entry in List `F'.

4. No case is, therefore, made out for interference with Tribunal's decision. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.