1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Riaz Anwar for Appellant. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Sh. Anwar Hussain, Assis tant Director Labour Welfare, Lahore Region, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, Lahore, Director, Labour Welfare, Punjab Lahore and M/s. Naimatullah Khan and 19 others.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that he may be declared senior to them on the ground that he was appointed Labour Officer on 12th January, 1966 when Mr. Q. A. Hakro Labour Officer Khairpur was not approved for promotion.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who joined the Industries Department as Junior Clerk raised to the rank of Leave Reserve Inspector of Shops and Weights from 26th April, 1949, the status and pay scale of which post was brought at par with that of Labour inspector w. e. f. 1st January, 1950. When the Labour Directorate was set up under the Punjab Government in the year 1952, the appellant was allocated to the Labour Directorate as a Labour Inspector. The appellant was promoted to the rank of Assistant Labour Officer w. e. f. 30th November, 1963. A vacancy of Labour Officer in the promotion quota fell vacant as Q. A. Hakro Labour Officer Khairpur had not been approved for promotion by the West Pakistan Public Service Commission and was reverted to the post of Assistant Labour Officer. The appellant was promoted in his place on ad hoc basis. On 2nd February, 1970, former Director of Labour Welfare, West Pakistan issued a notification promoting the appellant alongwith four others as Labour Officer in the Lahore Region, on ad hoc basis against the promotion quota vacancy. Appellant challenged this notification as according to him, it was patently illegal and had ignored his seniority, which according to him he enjoyed since 1966 as Labour Officer. However no decision was taken on his representation and in the meanwhile, he was retired under M. L. R. 114 on 18th March. 1972. The appellant filed a review petition against his retirement and was accepted and reinstated in service vide order dated 21st March, 1978. In the year 1979, the Depart mental Promotion Committee recommended the case of the appellant and two others for regularization with immediate effect. The appellant again contested this decision as he still claimed that he was an officer, who was appointed as a full-fledged Labour Officer in 1966. He made several repre sentations against this order and the ultimate rejection according to him, would be on 4th February, 1982, which informed him that his claim for seniority as Labour Officer from 12th January, 1966, was rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly based his claim on the happening which took place in the year 1966, when Mr. Q. A. Hakro, was not approved for promotion by the Public Service: Commission and the appellant was appointed as Labour Offcer in his place. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, although the word ad hoe was used with the said promotion of the appellant yet according to him this title had least significance because of the fact that the extension of his ad hoc appoint ment was not repeated by the Government which allowed him to continue as such. It has been further argued that since the appellant realised in 1970 that he had not been treated as a full-fledged regular Labour Officer from 1966 he represented against the same but could not pursue his case further, when he was retired under M. L. R.‑

114. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that when the appellant was reinstated in service in 1978, he was entitled to carry his seniority from 1966 with him and should not have been considered ad hoc till the year 1979, when the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended his case for regular appointment alongwith two others.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney as well as learned counsel for the respondents, have raised preliminary objection with regard to the 'maintainability of this appeal in the present form. According to them as the claim of the appellant, pertains to the year 1966 therefore, this Tribunal is precluded to look into this matter under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. It has been further urged that even otherwise the appeal is time‑barred as when the appellant alongwith two others were regularly promoted in the year 1979, and his representation against such order, stood rejected on 2nd September, 1981, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant on 7th July, 1982, was filed with a delay of about 10 months, for which there was neither any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act nor any cogent grounds otherwise have been given during the course of arguments.

7. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the very appointment order of the appellant in 1966, has clearly indicated that the appellant was on ad hoc basis. It has been further submitted that the case of the appellant was duly sent to the Public Service Commission for approval but the same was delayed at the end, therefore, it cannot be said that the Department had allowed the appellant to continue indefinitely in the said post, and he would be deemed to be a regular appointee. Learned District Attorney has further pointed out that even in 1970, when the appointment of the appellant was formalised in Lahore Region on the creation of a vacancy, it was clearly expressed that his formalization was made on ad hoc basis also. While elaborating this argument, learned District Attorney has clarified the controversy about the creation of Regions etc. According to him since Regional Cadre under the scheme had come into force from 15th February, 1962, and on this account the West Pakistan Public Service Commission had refused to take a cognizance of the case referred earlier to the said period, the appellant being domicile of Lahore Region was liable to be displaced as falling in excess of the quota of the said Region, but was allowed to continue on 2nd February, 1970, when his appointment was formalized in Lahore Region on its creation.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties before us and first of all deal with preliminary objection so raised on behalf of the respondents by the learned District Attorney as well as learned counsel.

9. The fact of the matter is that the claim of the appellant pertains to the year 1966, a date which does not fall within the purview of this Tribunal as clarified in section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. According to this section no appeal shall lie to this Tribunal against a order or decision of the departmental authority made at any time before 1st July, 1969, In the present case, the appellant wants us to declare the his appointment in the year 1966 was not on ad hoc basis, and should treated as regular. In this manner, he wants adjudication from us about a decision of departmental authority, which was taken in the year 1966. We have no hesitation to hold that this Tribunal is precluded to give any such judgment about a decision of the departmental authority, which was made in the year 1966, as provided under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

10. With regard to the limitation, we have carefully attended the arguments of both sides and agree with the learned counsel for the appel lant that failure of filing application under section 5 of the Limitation Act would be immaterial in view of ruling of 1971 S C M R 148, but he has failed to give any cogent reason for this delay. Mere repeating of repre sentation after representation, does not entitle a person to keep the limitation alive in his favour. We therefore, hold that the appeal is also liable to be dismissed as time‑barred.

11. With regard to the merits of the case, based on grounds that the case of the appellant should not be considered as ad hoc appointee from the year 1966, does not appeal to us. The order of the appointment merely shows that he was appointed on ad hoc basis and the record of the case no where confirms that he was treated regular appointee at any stag of this case. We are fortified with this observation of ours, as we find that in the year 1970 also the Department treated him as ad hoc appointee, although they formalized his appointment to save him from reversion. The record of the case further reveals that in the year 1979, the depart mental Promotion Committee recommended his case for regularization treating his earlier appointment as ad hoc. In these circumstances, the case of the appellant cannot be compared with the case of Ilyas Zaidi etc. as in that case, once they were declared ad hoc initially the department never extended the date of their ad hoc appointment and also at no time treated them as ad hoc. With regard to the claim of the appellant that as no Regions were ever created, therefore, the claim of the respondents that as the post was formalized in 1970, treating the appellant, belonging to Lahore Region, was misconcieved, we do not agree with the same as it is clear from the record that the Regional cadre under the scheme of Regionalization had come into force from 15th February, 1962 although the same was not formulated and this is why the West Pakistan Public Service Commission has refused to take cognizance of the case referred earlier uptil 1966. The crux of the matter is that the promotion of the appellant w. e. f. 12th January, 1966 as Labour Officer being on ad hoc basis, out of the region of domicile, would not be reckoned for the purpose of seniority and other consequential benefits, we are of the considered view that period prior to 2nd February, 1970, would be treated as ad hoc for al intents and purpose in case of the appellant.

12. The result is we dismiss the appeal as non‑maintainable, time barred as well as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.