1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The appellant filed a writ petition with the Lahore High Court against his retirement. The High Court held that the appeal had abated and should be filed with the Service Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant filed the appeal, under disposal, with the Tribunal in 5‑8‑1974 against the following grievances (a) non‑payment of 50 Y. of salary, not allowed. (b) benefit of annual increments with effect from 14‑3‑1972 to 26‑8‑1973. (c) has not been considered for promotion to higher grade. A representation was made to the Central Board of Revenue which was rejected on 2‑7‑1974. Orders of reinstatement of the appellant into service were issued on 12‑8‑1973. The Central Board of Revenue issued orders of promotion of 24 temporary Assistant Income‑tax Officers, junior to the appellant, to Grade 17 on 28th August 1973, giving effect to these promotions from 24th August, 1973. The case was previously heard on 14‑5‑1980. Both the parties were directed to place on record the relevant letter of the Government governing the promotion of officers of the category of Mian Irshad Ahmad, who were re‑instated into service. None of the parties has produced the relevant letter, even today. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that according to the admitted position in the letter of the Government governing the promotion of such officers. It is clear that the appellant should have been promoted on the basis of the seniority which he enjoyed before he was sent on retirement under M. L. R.

114. It was further stipulated in the letter that "officers already promoted would trot be affected by the promotion of the re‑instated officers". It was the case of the learned counsel that the appellant stood re‑instated into service with effect from i2‑8‑1973. As such, the promotion of 24 officers junior to the appellant, is not protected by the orders of the Government because they were promoted on a date subsequent to the re‑instatement of the appellant. He, therefore, requested that directive be issued to the con cerned administrative authority to consider the appellant for promotion on the basis of the seniority which he enjoyed before his compulsory retirement. If found suitable by the competent Selection Board/Departmental Promotion Committee, he should be promoted according to that seniority and allowed other consequential benefits based on that promotion including increments. The learned counsel for State argued that since 24 officers were promoted before the appellant joined duty on reinstatement, their promotion was protected under the orders of the Government. At this stage, attention of the learned State counsel was invited to the wording of the orders of the Government notifying the re‑instatement. The relevant portion of the notifica tion is reproduced below :‑ "In exercise of the powers conferred by paragraph 4 of the Removal from Service (Review Petition) Regulation, 1972, the President having considered the review petitions of the following persons retired under the Removal from Service (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1972, and other relevant material, is pleased to rescind with immediate effect, the orders of premature retirement from service passed against the said persons." It was pointed out to the learned State counsel with reference to the above wording of the Government notification that the previous orders of retirement having been rescinded, and the appellant stood reinstated into service with effect from 12‑8‑1973, irrespective of the date of his joining. The promotion of the officers ordered by the Central Board of Revenue on 28‑8‑1973 cannot be protected, since they did not fall in the category of officers already promoted. The Departmental Representative explained that due to serious shortage of Income‑tax Officers, the cases of 24 officers junior too the appellant, were processed in a hurry and approval was already obtained when orders of the appellant's re‑instatement into service were received. As these officers were approved for promotion before the appellant became available for such a consideration, the protection was available to them under letter of the Establishment Division. After hearing both the parties, we arc not convinced with the plea advanced by the learned State Counsel.' Since orders of retirement have been rescinded, the effect would be as if the appellant was never retired and was still available for being considered for promotion when his juniors were ordered to be promoted on 28‑8‑1973. He was reinstated into service by rescinding the previous order with effect from 12‑8‑1973. The plea taken by the Departmental Representative that there was acute shortage of officers, and as such the processing of the cases of the junior officers was done in a hurry is neither relevant nor convincing. The simple fact remains that the appellant was available for promotion on 28‑8‑1973 and the protection contemplated in the Government orders is not available to these 24 officers. In the circumstances, it is ordered that the appellant be considered for promotion according to the seniority which he was enjoying before compulsory retirement and if found suitable by the competent Selection Board/Departmental Promotion Committee, he should be promoted with effect from the date he is found suitable and consequential benefits of pay and increments admissible under the rules/orders should be allowed to him. Since the prayer in the appeal is confined only to the promotion with effect from the date it becomes due with consequential benefits, and the learned counsel for the appellant did not press for the other grievances, no orders are necessary regarding any other grievance mentioned in the contents of the appeal. Order accordingly.