1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. Hazir Hussain Hashmi has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director, Manpower and Training, Labour Department, Punjab, Lahore and the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned orders, dated 20th December, 1982 and 23rd December, 1982 be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service as Trade Instructor or in the alternative as Junior Trade Instructor or at least as Shop Assistant (Electrical) w. e. f. 23rd December, 1982 with full back benefits of pay, allowance etc.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as confirmed Shop Assistant (Electrical), in N. P. S.‑6, the Directorate of Technical Education, Punjab, Lahore. The administrative control of all the Vocational Institutes previously being run by the Technical Education Department, was transferred to Directorate, Manpower and Training, Punjab, Labour Department from July, 1979. The services of the appellant were accordingly transferred alongwith these institutes to the Labour Department alongwith his post. Some posts of Trade Instructor (Electrical) in N. P. S.‑14, fell vacant and the Directorate of Manpower and Training, Punjab invited applications from the outsiders as well as in service candidates in the year 1982. The appellant was selected for the said post and was appointed as Trade Instructor (Electrical), vide order dated 15th July, 1982 at Government Vocational Institute for boys, D. G. Khan in N. P. S.‑

14. At the time of his appointment to this post the appellant was working as Shop Assistant (Electrical) Vocational Institute for boys, Multan. On his selection to the post of N. P. S.‑14, the appellant was directed for training at Government Technical Training Centre, Mughalpura, Lahore. Subsequently by a substituted order the appointment of the appellant was declared as Junior Trade Instructor (Electrical) in N. P. S.‑14 instead of Trade Instructor (Electrical). The appointment as Trade Instructor (Electrical) and as Junior Trade Instructor (Electrical) was for a period of ' three months. The services of the appellant were terminated w. e. f. 23rd December, 1982 vide order dated 23rd December, 1982 issued by the Director, Manpower and Training, Punjab, Lahore. The appellant was also relieved on 23rd December, 1982. On termination of services the appellant reported for duty to his original post of Shop Assistant (Electrical) to the Principal. Government Vocational Institute, Multan vide his application, date 26th December, 1982 but he was refused to resume duty on this post on the plea that the appellant's services stood altogether terminated from the post of Shop Assistant (Electrical) on his appointment and joining as Trade Instructor. The appellant submitted representation, dated 18th January, 1983 to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Labour Department. No decision has so far been taken and conveyed to the appellant, although a period of 90 days has since expired. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learner counsel for the appellant that the appellant was selected as Trade Instructor (Electrical) /Junior Trade Instructor (Electrical), in N.P.S.‑14, on merits, Though his colleagues and other junior persons to him are still continuing on this post of N. P. S.‑14, but services of the appellant have been terminated without any reasons, though, the appellant had taken part in his training actively. The appellant was a confirmed Shop Assistant (Electrical), in N. P. S.‑6 when he was appointed in N. P. S.‑11 and his lien could not be terminated from his original post unless he was confirmed in the new post. On his termination from the higher post of N. P. S.‑14, the refusal of the department, not to allow him to join his original post is against the rules and is unjustified. Concluding his arguments, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the orders i.e. termination of the services of the appellant from Junior Trade Instructor (Electrical) and then not allowing him to join at his original/ substantive post of Shop Assistant (Electrical) are unjustified, unlawful and be quashed.

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney assisted with the help of the Department's representative, has submitted that the appellant was appointed only for three months as Junior Trade Instructor (Electrical) and hence his service have been terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment. As far as his reposting to the original post of Shop Assistant (Electrical) is concerned, on transfer of the services of the appellant to the Labour Department from the Directorate of Technical Education, his services were transferred as a temporary employee and his pay has been drawn, since then, on the yearly basis. On his appointment as Trade Instructor (Electrical), in N. P. S.‑14, he accepted the same and joined on that post. Thus, on joining this post, the lien of the appellant, had been automatically terminated, from his original post being a temporary one. In the meanwhile, this post was got filled and on termination of the services of the appellant from the N. P. S.‑14 post, the department was not in a position to allow him to join his original post, as it was not vacant.????????

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. A perusal of Annexure 'B' of the appeal shows that the appellant was confirmed as Shop Assistant (Electrical), while he was working in the Directorate of Technical Education, Punjab, Lahore. The services of the appellant were transferred to the Labour Department alongwith other staff of Government Vocational institutes for boys in the year 1979. Para. 3 of the parawise comment submitted by the Director, Manpower and Training, Punjab, Lahore on this appeal, clearly shows that no specific orders /instructions were issued by the S & G A D regarding the terms and conditions of the staff of G. V. Is. It makes abundantly clear that the staff of‑ the Government Vocational Institutes, under the control of Directorate of Technical Education, Punjab, Lahore, was transferred to the Labour Department on the same terms and conditions which they enjoyed immediately before their transfer and those terms and conditions were not altered by the S & G A D/Labour Department, as is clear from these comments submitted by the respondents, Thus, on termination of services of the appellants as Junior Trade Instructor (Electrical), the post on which the appellant was appointed temporarily for three months, be could not be refused to join his substantive post as Shop Assistant (Electrical), unless the appellant was confirmed on the higher post, he continued enjoying lien on his substantive post as per rule 3.17 of C. S. R. Punjab, Volume I, Part, I. I consider that the refusal of the respondents not to allow the appellant to join and work on his substantive post of Shop Assistant (Electrical) in N. P. S.‑6, is illegal and he continued to be in service as~ such, on his termination as Junior Trade Instructor. The record of this case was called from the respondent department and was consulted with the help of their representative, but he has failed to satisfy me as if, the reversion of the appellant from the post of Junior Trade Instructor (Electrical), in N. P. S.‑14, was justified ; especially keeping in view that the appellant was selected on merits on this post and he was allowed to continue to work in that capacity even after the expiry of three months in contrary to his terms and conditions of appointment. The appellant was appointed as Trade Instructor (Electrical) vide order, dated 18th July, 1982. But his services were terminated w.e.f. 23rd December, 1982. Thus, be was allowed to continue as such, even, after expiry of a period of three months. This matter needs detailed study and scrutiny by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Health Department in view of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that persons junior to the appellant have been allowed to continue as Junior Trade Instructors (Electrical), in N. P. S.‑14, while the services of, the appellant have been terminated without any merits and justification.??

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal of the appel?lant is accepted. The appellant is directed to be continuing in serving as Shop Assistant (Electrical), w.e f. 23rd December, 1982 the date of reversion of appellant from the post of Junior Trade Instructor (Electrical), with full back benefits. The Secretary, Government of Punjab, Labour Department is also directed to examine and scrutinize the reversion case of the appellant from the post of Junior Trade Instructor (Electrical), in N.P.S.‑14, so that no injustice is done with the appellant. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. H.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.