2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The facts of this appeal are that the appellant had joined Police Force as T/A.S.I. on 1‑4‑1972. He was confirmed as such on 22‑12‑1973 on passing the Upper Class Course. He was promoted and confirmed as Sub -Inspector respectively on 8‑5‑1982 and 25‑7‑1985. He was brought on F‑List on 12‑2‑1989 and promoted as Inspector, on 22‑2‑1989. He was later confirmed as such on 15‑2‑1991. His claim in this appeal is that he was senior to respondents Nos.2 and 3; that his seniority position as it stood on 4‑12‑1998 (Annexure A/1) below Mr. Aimat Bari and, above Muhammad Hussain i.e. Serial No.170, could not have been legally disturbed by giving ante‑date promotion /confirmation to respondents Nos.2 and 3 and that in any case, he was entitled to be placed over and above the said respondents to all intents and purposes. It has also been claimed that he was entitled to be considered for promotion as D.S.P. from the date (30‑4‑1997) when his aforementioned two juniors were promoted.

2. On admission of the appeal, written objections were called from the respondents. Respondent No. l filed written objections on 2‑5‑2000. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were issued notices on 29‑12‑1999, 2‑5‑2000 and lastly on 19‑5‑2000. Copies of TCS receipts and those of notices are on record. Those would carry presumption of service of the said respondents vide section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 particularly when the Communications were correctly addressed. They allowed the proceedings to go against them ex parte vide order, dated 7‑6‑2000, perhaps for the obvious reason that they were junior to the appellant and might have reconciled with themselves. The learned Inspector Legal (Mr. Ilyas Habib) who had appeared to represent the I.‑G.P. had conceded on 14‑6‑2000 that the appellant was ,senior to respondents Nos.2 and 3 as per the seniority list of Inspectors.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

4. It was admitted in the written comments submitted by the I.‑G.P. that the appellant was senior to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as A.S.I. and so on. This fact was also conceded by him in the coarse of hearing on 14‑6‑2000. Seniority being a vested right in Punjab, the same could not have been disturbed comfortably by giving the said respondents ante‑dated confirmation and seniority. In the case of the police officials, it is settled law that date of confirmation would not be different than the date of appointment/promotion, except for disciplinary action or in cases of gallantry awards etc. The record of respondents Nos.2 and 3 was no better than that of the appellant. There was no valid justification to place them senior at any stage. Relying upon the rule laid down in 1992 SCMR 1.388, 1998 PLC C.S.) 373 it would be just and equitable to declare the appellant as entitled to confirmation from the date when his aforesaid juniors were confirmed as Inspectors and to promotion as .D.S.P. when his said juniors were so promoted on 30‑4‑1997. This will enable him to regain his seniority position vis‑a‑vis his juniors. This principle was also followed by this Tribunal in its judgment rendered on 11 ‑4‑1996 in Service Appeal No. 1709 of 1994 in the case of Mr. Amir Baig, D.S.P., Mailsi. 4‑A. As a sequel of the above, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is declared entitled to confirmation as Inspector w.e.f. 1‑7‑1987 by altering/amending his date of promotion and confirmation as A.S.‑I. from the date of appointment under the Rule 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, onwards, with further consequential relief including his promotion as D.S.P. w.e.f. 30‑4‑1997 when his aforementioned two juniors (respondents Nos.2 and 3) were so promoted. H.B.T./14/P. Sr. (Trib.) Appeal accepted.