2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The competent authority under this rule is Board of Directors or its delegatee. Chapter II of the abovesaid rules deals with the matters relating to the appointment, probation and termination of services. Under rule 6(b) (iv), the Manager has been defined as under:‑‑ "Manager previously called as Accountants, Assistant Accountants, Sub‑Accountants and Junior Accountants)." The seniority inter se of the members of service in the various scales is determined under Rule 13, Chapter 3 of the abovesaid rules which provides as under:‑‑ "(a) From the date of appointment in the scale; (b) in the case of members appointed by initial recruitment, in accordance with the order of merit assigned by the appointing authority; , (c) in the case of members appointed on promotion with reference to the date of their continuous .appointment therein, provided that if the date of continuous appointment in the case of two more members of the service is the same, the elder officials/officers if not junior to the younger officials/officers in lower rank shall senior." Previously the employees of Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd., Lahore were being governed by the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 1963. The classification of the staff for the purposes of appointment, probation and termination of service was made in Chapter II, rule 6 of the said Rules as under: "(A) General Manager. (A‑1)(i) Deputy General Manager. (ii) Chief Manager at Head Office and Zonal Chiefs at Zonal Headquarters. Note.‑‑ The post of Chief Manager at Head Office is equivalent and interchangeable with that of Zonal Chief. (B). (i) Senior Manager at Head Office and Zonal Offices and District Managers at District Headquarters (classified as under):‑‑ Note.‑‑The posts of Senior Managers and District Managers are equivalant, interchangeable. (ii) Chief Cashier at Head Office. (iii) Civil Engineer at Head Office. (iv) Managers (previously called as Accountants; Assistant Accountants, Sub‑Accountants and Junior Accountants). The post of Managers at Head Office, Tehsil Offices and Branches are equivalent and interchangeable. A person holding charge of the post of Manager/District Manager on the date coming into force of these Rules will not be treated as Manager unless he is promoted to this post. (v) Public Relation Officers. Officers (Category‑II): (i) Head Cashier. (ii) Supervisors. (iii) Officers (previously called as Officers Grade‑III). (iv) Sub‑Engineers." The seniority of the employees in their respective grade was to be determined under Chapter 3 of rule 22 of the said Rules. The abovesaid Staff Service Rules, 1963 were superseded by the subsequent rules namely Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank (Staff) Service Rules, 1986. The subsequent rules were, however; not made applicable to the cases already decided under the previous rules. The representation of the petitioner dated 20‑12‑1981 was decided for the first time vide order, dated 24‑9‑1998 passed by the Registrar under the direction of this Court in the light of the seniority list published under Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank (Staff) Rules, 1986. The perusal pf the order under challenge and the order passed in the Writ Petition No.623 of 1988 in the light of above‑referred rules, I find that the dispute relating to the seniority of the petitioner was not considered either by the Registrar or by the Secretary in the light of the abovesaid rules. The petitioner admittedly was discharging his function regularly a Manager on promulgation of establishment of Federal Bank for Cooperatives and Regulation of Cooperative Banking Ordinance, 1976, and therefore, the dispute relating to his seniority was essentially required to be determined under the existing rules namely ‑Punjab. Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. (Staff) Rules, 1986 in the cadre of Manager but unfortunately he was placed as Sub‑Accountant in the provisional seniority list published in the year 1981 and later the Registrar and the Secretary, Cooperative Societies while disposing of his representation treated the‑matter either as past and closes transaction with observation that he having failed to challenge the seniority list dated 21‑11‑1996 by way of appeal could not retrace his step for the purpose of seniority to the period prior to the promulgation of Federal Bank for Cooperatives and Regulation of Cooperative Banking Ordinance, 1976. The dispute relating to the seniority of the petitioner was required to be dealt with under the subsequent Rules published in the year 1986 but neither the Registrar nor the Secretary has considered the case of the petitioner under the said rules. In nutshell the claim of the petitioner to determine his seniority as Manager w.e.f. his date of appointment as Manager on regular basis in the year 1976 was not considered either in the light of the previous rules or existing rules and in consequence thereto the right of the promotion of the ‑petitioner was definitely prejudiced. The issue decided in the earlier petition was confined only to the extent that prior to 1976 the petitioner was on deputation and therefore would not be in a position to claim seniority on the basis of his position as deputationist. However, that order would not be a bar for the petitioner to file the present petition for the simple reason that the _representation of the petitioner was decided under the direction of this Court in the I.C.A. and the present petition was preferred against the order passed in the representation. The learned counsel representing the respondent has raised objection relating to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that it being a service matter cannot be entertained by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; 1973 due to the Bar contained in Article 212 of the ibid Article. The learned counsel added that the Cooperative Society is an autonomous body and the employees of the respondent would be governed by the principle of master and servant therefore the respondents are not amenable to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent also sought dismissal of this petition on merits with the contention that the order in the writ petition was not set aside in the I.C.A. by the Division Bench nor there was any fresh cause of action in favour of the petitioner to bring this petition. The learned counsel with reference to the order passed by the Registrar and Secretary of the Cooperative Societies contended that there was no. question of law involved in the present petition and the claim of the seniority by the petitioner on the basis of factual controversy would not be adudicatable by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. The objection relating to the maintainability of this petition and the adjudication of the issue in the writ petition as observed in the, earlier para. having no substance are not entertainable. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this writ petition set aside, the order, dated 24‑9‑1994 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and order, dated 7‑6‑1999 passed by the Secretary, Cooperative Societies Lahore without lawful authority and remand matter to the Board of Directors for determination of the seniority of the petitioner in the light of the Service Rules applicable to him and consider his case for promotion afresh in the light of his correct position in the seniority list. There shall be no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑420/L Petition allowed