2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR (CHAIRMAN).

This appeal under section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974 has been preferred by the appellant against the order/seniority list dated 13-10-2005 wherein he has been placed at S.No.9 instated at S.No.1 being senior.

2. The relevant facts in small compass are that the appellant was appointed as Auditor in BPS-11 on 28-5-1984 in Local Fund Audit Department and thereafter was confirmed on 30-8-1990. Later on he was recruited as Assistance Manager Finance in Lasbella Industries Estate Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as L.I.E.D.A.) on 27-4-1994. He was repatriated to his parent department on 14-1-2005. However, his name was placed at S.No.9 in the impugned seniority list dated 13-10-2005 and 8 Auditors who were most junior in appointment and confirmation in the department were shown senior to appellant in the said list, and appellant was treated as fresh appointee. The appellant being aggrieved made a number of representations in regard of seniority list, protection of salary and promotion to the rank of Audit Officer BPS-16 but the same were not disposed of.

3. On the other hand, the respondents contested the appeal on legal and factual aspects by means of filing their written replies.

4. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the available record with their valuable assistance.

5. In order to resolve the controversy regarding deputation and lien, it will be appropriate to reproduce the contents of letter dated 14th January, 2005 whereby the appellant was repatriated in parent department, which is as follow: "The Government of Balochistan is pleased to allow the reversion of Mr. Ejaz Ahmed, Junior Auditor to his parent department Local Fund Audit Finance Department with immediate effect. On his reversion to his parent department the Lasbela Industries Estate Development Authority may relieve him immediately with clearance of all his dues if any in L.I.E.D.A."

6. It is crystal clear from bare reading the contents of aforesaid letter that the appellant was repatriated to his parent department by the competent authority. There is no cavil to principle of law, that Government employee who is sent on deputation to serve borrowing authority continues to hold his basic service cadre with parent department till his permanent absorption in the borrowing department. Lending department does not enjoy any power or authority under law to arbitrarily revoked or terminate lien of his employee temporarily serving in some other institution, statutory body or government department as deputationist. Civil servant having not been confirmed in any of this subsequent job, his lien with his parent department remains intact throughout, in spite of the fact that he joins service in other department or in an autonomous body; lien of a civil servant could not be terminated even with his consent, and that the same could be terminated only when he is confirmed against some permanent post. There is nothing available on record to show that the appellant was confirmed under the L.I.E.D.A.

7. It is also settled principle of law that a civil servant after' reversion to parent department automatically regains his original seniority as such, the department was not justified while declining the grant of seniority and promotion to the appellant.

8. The record also indicates that it is a case of hardship. The appellant during his deputation period in L.I.E.D.A. was drawing Rs.16,222 as per salary and after reversion a service period of about 20 years has not been considered by the respondent-department and presently he is being given salary of net amount of Rs.6,866 without any justification in gross violation of principle of protection and fixation of salary instead of taking sympathetic view.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned seniority list dated 13-10-2005 is hereby declared illegal. The respondents are directed to revise the same while placing the appellant at S.No.1 being senior and remarks should be deleted. They are to enter the qualification of appellant as B.A. instead of M.A. The salary of appellant should be fixed while considering his total period of service including the deputation period. He should be granted pro forma promotion from 27-5-2006 without back-benefits.

10. With the observation made hereinabove the appeal stood disposed of with no order as to costs. H.B.T./13/BST Order accordingly.