1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant. A. G. Humayun District Attorney for Respondent. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑ Muhammad Alam Khan, P. S.‑I., bas filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the D. I.‑G. Police Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala. D. L‑G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore and 63 contesting respondents as respondents:

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 25th April, 1983 and 8th April; 1983 be set aside and respondents Nos.1 to 3 be directed to count the seniority of the appellant as P. S.‑I. from 1st January, 1976 and to consider/promote him to List 'F' and as P.‑I. from the date from which his next junior was so promoted. He has further prayed that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 be also directed to show the appellant between Serial Nos. 12 and 13 of List 'F', dated 25th April, 1983.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was enlisted as P. S.‑I. on 1st December, 1975 and joined as such at Sialkot on 1st January, 1976 in Lahore Range comprising the .districts of Gujranwala, Sialkot, Sheikhupura and Kasur. In the year 1979 the appellant's father Niaz Muhammad Khan, Retd. A. S.‑I. applied to the Inspector‑General of Police Punjab, requesting for the transfer of the appellant from Gunjranwala to Lahore Range. The Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, acceded to the said request of his father and directed the respondents to transfer the appellant. Accordingly respondent No. 1 wrote to D. I.‑G. Lahore Range respondent No. 2, in which he intimated that he had no objection to the transfer of the appellant to Lahore Range provided D. I.‑G. Lahore was willing to take over the appellant against an existing vacancy or in exchange of any P. S.‑I. However Respondent No. 3 issued List `F', dated 25th April, 1983 wherein the appellant has been shown at Serial No. 76 and Respondents Nos. 4 to 66 have been shown senior to the appellant. Aggrieved against this the appellant filed repre sentation to the next higher authorities which has been rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the depart ment and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that toe request of the appellant's father would not be binding on‑the appellant and thus his interest should not be allowed to suffer on the ground of the said request. The main stress laid down by the learned counsel for the appellant is that such a request was made by his father without his knowledge and consent, therefore, his transfer to Lahore Range would not make him junior to others already working there under the accepted principle that a civil servant will be shown junior when he is transferred from one Range to another, at his own request. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant was otherwise senior to the respondents, he should not have been shown junior to them in the seniority list of 1983.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that as the appellant was beneficiary of the said transfer, therefore, according to the set principle of seniority, every S.‑I‑/P. S.‑I. would be placed at the lowest in a Range to which he is transferred at his own request. It has been vehemently argued that the appellant has not denied the validity of this principle and kept mum for a period of 4 years as such the seniority of 1983, would be valid from all angles.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and the crucial issue to be determined by us is whether the request of Niaz Muhammad Khan, A.S.I.Retd. father of the appellant was a request with the knowledge and consent of the appellant or not. The fact of the matter is that the appellant was transferred from Gujranwala Range to Lahore Range on the request of his father and kept on working for about 4 years in the said Range without any representation in this behalf that the request of his father would in no way be allowed to affect his seniority which was likely to be fixed in accordance with the set principle laid in this behalf. It would not be possible for us to accept the plea of the appellant that although he has enjoyed the benefit of transfer for full 4 years, the request of his father was made without his consent. Holding this issue against the appellant we do not find any reason to interfere with the seniority list which has been formulated in the light of the accepted principle of seniority in such matters. The appellant has been transferred from Gujranwala Range to Lahore Range at the request of his father and he did acknowledge the said posting for years, therefore, the principle of seniority will come into display, that a person who seeks transfer at his own request from one range to another range, will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list.

8. In the light of the discussions so made above, we find no merit 'in this appeal which is dismissed. However there‑ will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.