1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

"Officers appointed as Section Officers by transfer in the Office Management Group are assigned seniority in accordance with the following approved principles:‑ (i) Officers in Basic Pay Scale 17 or 18 who joined Federal Secretariat as Section Officers initially on deputation and were subsequently appointed by transfer as Section Officer in the same scale in the OMG have been assigned seniority as Section Officer in Scale 17 or 18, as the case may be, from the date they joined the Federal Secretariat as Section Officer on deputation. (ii) Officers in Basic Pay Scale‑17 who joined Federal Secretariat as Section Officer on deputation in BPS‑17 and subsequently promoted to BPS‑18 in their parent cadre while on deputation to Federal Secretariat have been assigned seniority on their appointment by transfer as Section Officer in BPS‑18 from the dated on which they were promoted to BPS‑18 while on deputation."

3. The appellant filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Leave was granted to consider whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal by relying on paragraph 12(b)(ii) of the Office Memorandum No.l/2/75/‑ARC, dated 27‑1‑1975 as according to the appellant his case was covered by paragraph 12(c) of the said O.M.

4. Mr. Munir Peracha, the learned Advocate Supreme Court contended that the seniority in Grade‑18 should have been determined from the date of regular continuous officiation on that grade. To support his contention the learned counsel referred to paragraph 12(c) of the Office Memorandum which reads as follows:‑ "Seniority in Grade‑18 and above will be determined in each Grade from the date of regular continuous officiation in each Grade."

5. The Tribunal was of the view that appellant's seniority‑could be reckoned with effect from 7‑12‑83 on the strength of section 8(2) of the Civil Servants Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with the provision of paragraph 12(c) of O.M. dated 27‑1‑1975 only if he had remained in the Directorate‑General Inter Services Intelligence and that his promotion as Assistant Director BPS‑18 in his parent department has no relevance for the fixation of his seniority as Section Officer in the O.M.G. which is entirely a different occupational group. The Tribunal sought support from paragraph 12(b) of the O.M. No.l/2/75‑ARC, dated 27‑1‑1975 but as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant it refers to all officers of Grade‑17 and not to officers of Grade‑

18. Section 8 of the Act prescribes the principles for determination of seniority as follows:‑ "

8. Seniority.‑‑‑(1) For proper administration of a service, cadre of post, the appointing authority shall cause a seniority list of the members for the time being of such service, cadre or post to be prepared, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to confer any vested right to a particular seniority in such service, cadre or post, as the case may be. (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1), the seniority of a civil servant shall be reckoned in relation to the other civil servants belonging to the same service or cadre whether serving in the same department or office or not, as may be prescribed. (3) Seniority on initial appointment to a service, cadre or post shall be determined as may be prescribed. (4) Seniority in a post, service or cadre to which a civil servant is promoted shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to that post: Provided that civil servants who are selected for promotion to a higher post in one batch shall, on their promotion to the higher post, retain their inter se seniority as in the lower post."

6. The learned counsel correctly contended that the present case is not governed by subsections (3) or (4), but by subsection (2) of section 8 of the Act which requires rules to be framed for determining the seniority in cases as before us. But as no rules have been framed, guidance has to be sought from the practice, administrative orders passed in such cases and also the precedents by which the seniority of officers on transfer from another service to O.M.G. is being determined. In Nazir Ahmad Qureshi v. Pakistan and others (PLD 1959 (W.P) Karachi 92), Kayani, CJ. observed: "There are no rules of seniority governing this department, and we should, therefore, be guided by the rule of practice the rule of continuous officiating service and the rule of confirmation." Therefore, where there are no rules for determining the seniority in any department one of the guiding rules will be the practice followed by such department.

7. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General has referred to the O.M. of 1975 and contended that the O.M.G. was constituted as another occupational group by the said O.M. under the control of Establishment Division. This O.M. laid down broad frame‑work of rules and procedure for the administrative control of the group. It provided for the composition of various grades, the working strength of the Section Officers, future recruitment, training, appointment by transfer and promotions. Paragraph 12 provides procedure and principle for determination of seniority. Sub‑para (d) of para. 12 provides as follows:‑ "(d) Officers appointed by transfer will be assigned seniority in accordance with Civil Servants Act and the rules framed thereunder." The appellant was appointed by transfer to O.M.G., therefore, his case will be governed by sub‑para (d) and not by sub‑para (c).

8. The admitted position has emerged that the Civil Servants Act requires determination of seniority to the principles laid down by the rules framed under it but no rules have been framed. Therefore, in the absence of rules applying the principles for determining seniority as discussed above, in our view, reliance can be placed on the O.M. quoted above. According to O.M. No.8/17/90/OMG‑I, dated 28‑1‑1991 quoted in para 2 above, officers in the pay scale of 17 or 18 who had joined Federal Secretariat as Section Officers on deputation and were subsequently appointed by transfer as Section Officers in the same scale in the O.M.G. were given seniority from the date they joined the Federal Secretariat as Section Officers on deputation. The promotion to Grade‑18 in the parent department was not to be taken as the cut off date for purposes of determining the seniority in the O.M.G. The appeal is dismissed. A./A. /M‑3107/SC Appeal dismissed.