1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant, Mr. Sajjad Haider Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the Settlement Department has called in question the position in the seniority list assigned to him by the Government as Grade‑17 Officer. The facts in brief are that the Settlement Department, having been created as purely temporary department, the officers appointed in this department were all on ad hoc basis. They were being posted from the Accounts Branch .to the Regular Branch and back again to the Accounts Branch according to exigency of service, there being no seniority list maintained up to Grade‑

16. The appellant and the respon dents were then promoted on ad hoc basis to Grade‑17 on various dates. But by a notification dated 12th December, 1977, the Chief Secretary in the Services Department regularised the promotions of the appellant and the respondents with effect from the same date, viz. 12th December, 1977. In this list apart from Mr. S. Waseem Ahmad Rizvi in Grade‑18 the other officers regularised, in Grade‑17, were the appellant and five others including respondents Mr. Akhlaq Khan, Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Khan, Mr. Ansar Hassan and Mr. Ali Jarrar Hydri. The respondent Ali Jarrar Hydri has since retired and respondent Ansar Hassan has been absorbed on promotion in some other department, leaving only Muhammad Akhlaq Khan and Mukhtar Ahmad Khan as the contesting respondents. The Government by another notification dated 21st June, 1979 fixed the inter se seniority of these officers as under: ‑ (1) Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq Khan. (2) Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Khan. (3) Mr. S. A. Sajjad Harder, The officers not contesting being omitted. The, question then arises how the inter se seniority of these three officers be determined. Mr. Hussain Adil Khatri counsel for the appellant has argued that the question of their original ad hoc appointments or the length of their service as ad hoc appointees in Grade‑16 should be the determining factor. However, the admitted position is that in case of ad hoc appointees, the question of seniority does not arise. Their position in Grade‑16 cannot regarded as the criterion for inter se seniority as regular appointees in Grade‑

17. Rule 11 of the Sind Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules would, therefore, be applicable to their case for deter (mining inter se seniority. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of this Rule having no application to their case, clause (d) would apply. According to this clause in the cane of persons not covered by clauses (a) to (c), the seniority would be determined on the basis; that persons older in age shall rank senior to persons younger in age. Mr. Hassan Akbar, A. A.‑G. has given us dates of birth of these three officers as under :‑ (1) Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq Khan .. 1-6‑1929 (2) Mr. S. A. Sajjad Harder ... 7‑1‑1930 (3) Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Khan ... 25‑10‑1930 Appellant Sajjad Haider and respondent Mukhtar Ahmad Khan have personally admitted the dates to be correct. The date of birth of Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq Khan has been verified by Mr. Hassan Akbar, A. A.‑G. from the record, and the other contesting officers do not dispute it. Therefore, according to Rule 11 (d) the inter se seniority of these three officers would be as under :‑‑ (1) Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq Khan. (2) Mr. S. A. Sajjad Harder. (3) Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Khan. We accordingly direct that the notification dated 21st June, 1979 fixing seniority, be corrected accordingly in respect of these three officers. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above order with .no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal disposed of.