1984 PLP 1413 (PLC(CS))

Appeal No. LHR‑74 of 1982, decided on 24th March, 1982. ‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Appellant temporarily promoted in leave vacancy‑Claiming regular promotion against permanent post‑Stay order refused by trial Court to enable permanent employee resume his post on expiry of leave‑Order upheld by Tribunal. Javed Rashid for Appellant. Date of hearing: 15th February 1982 The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, who was a skilled turner in Engineering Signal Shop, Railways, was selected for being promoted as Mistri on 30th April, 1978. There were some leave vacancies of Mistries and one was permanent. The appellant was on 6th April, 1980 promoted against permanent vacancy when Muhammad Islam Baig, respondent No. 3, was promoted against leave vacancy. According to the appellant, Islam Baig had been transferred on his own request so he was as such junior to him. Before leave vacancy ended he was appointed as Mistri against permanent vacancy. The appellant claims regular promotion against permanent vacancy on the ground that he is senior and that his pay is more than the pay of respondents Nos. 3, 4, 6 and

7. This position does not appear to be correct. Respondent No. 3 has not been transferred but he has come prima facie from the quota of direct appointments. The persons who are directly appointed and do not come by promotion from lower grade are appointed in permanent vacancies because if they are appointed against temporary vacancies they have to go out on the termina tion of temporary vacancies, whereas conversely if temporary vacancies are filled in by promotion, the promotees are reverted to their substantive posts, on the termination of the temporary vacancies. 1f stay order is granted to the appellant, on the termination of vacancies there will be no post available for the permanent Mistri namely Muhammad Anwar in whose leave vacancy the appellant stands temporarily promoted lie is admittedly confirmed Mistri and senior to the appellant and he never can be debarred from resuming his post. So far as Muhammad Islam Baig is concerned, since has already been appointed against permanent vacancy by the stay order he would be dislocated which cannot be done unless the appellant ultimately succeed in his petition.

2. This ground given by the learned lower Court is correct that irreparable loss is likely to be suffered by the appellant if stay order is refused, because if they succeed, they will be promoted with effect from the date on which he was entitled to be promoted against permanent vacancy of Mistri. So the stay application has been rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court. No ground. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.