1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER): ‑‑While serving as Accounts Assistant in the Office of Manager Finance (Co‑ordination), the appellant was transferred in the same capacity to the Office of Director Accounts, Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala, by order dated 2‑3‑1980 which, inter alia, provided that seniority will be assigned to him from the date he joined the Power Wing.

2. Provisional seniority list of Accounts Assistants including Divisional Accountants prepared up to 30‑4‑1982 was circulated by the competent Authority through letter dated 12‑9‑1982 where the appellant was placed against serial No. 198 with reference to his date of appointment which was 15‑2‑1978. Objections were invited within three months of the date of circulation of the list and it was laid down that the list will be considered as final in case no objections are filed.

3. Another "provisional revised seniority list" of Assistants, Accounts Assistants and Divisional Accountants, prepared uptil 31‑3‑1978 was circulated by letter dated 20‑4‑1988. The appellant was shown against serial No. 121 of this list and here again the date of his appointment was mentioned as 15‑2‑1978. It was the date of his entry into service in accordance with the letter of his appointment (Annexure A/1). Objections were invited against this list within two months from the date of issuance of the letter and here again it was laid down that it will be taken as final in the absence of objections.

4. Thereafter, another seniority list of these officials corrected upto 30‑6‑1990 was circulated through letter dated 26‑9‑1990. In this list, the name of appellant was mentioned against serial No. 186 in accordance with his date of appointment in the Power Wing on 15‑3‑1980. It was mentioned that he was transferred at his own request from Co‑ordination to the Power Wing under the Chairman Area Electricity Board of Gujranwala. Like it was done in the previous cases, objections were invited and it was laid down that in the absence of any objections, seniority will be considered as final and acceptable to all concerned.

5. The appellant addressed a representation to the General Manager, Finance (Power) WAPDA, Wapda House, Lahore, against his seniority. It was prayed that his seniority may be reckoned from 15‑2‑1978 which was the date of his original appointment, The representation was rejected and the Director Accounts Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala was informed of this fact by letter dated 6‑2‑1991 which was to the following effect: "The Director Accounts A.E.B. WAPDA, Gujranwala. Subject:‑ REVISED PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST REPRESENTATION OF MR. JAVAID IQBAL, ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT Ref: Your letter No. 13209/DAG/Admn./PF‑15 dated 4‑12‑1990. The appellant was transferred from Coordination Wing to Power Wing and posted at Gujranwala subject to the terms and conditions as stipulated therein clearly indicating that his seniority in Accounts Power Wing would be reckoned from the date he joined in Accounts Power Wing as is evident from footnote 1 of this Office Order No. 99 dated 2‑3‑1980. He joined duties on 15‑3‑1980 in acceptance of these terms and conditions and his seniority is to be assigned from the said date correctly. (Sd.) DIRECTOR ACCOUNTS (ADMN.) POWER, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE" 6.After this letter was endorsed to the appellant on 23‑2‑1991 he made another representation to the Member (Power) WAPDA, Lahore with the same request. He was informed by letter dated 15‑5‑1991 endorsed to him on 25‑5‑1991 that the decision regarding fixation of seniority already conveyed to him did not merit further consideration and that it still holds good; where after he came to the Tribunal with the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 12‑6‑1991 praying that the impugned seniority list of 30‑6‑1990 may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to restore his seniority from 15‑2‑1989 which is the date of his entry into Accounts Service WAPDA.

7. Although it has not been so mentioned in the appellant's pleadings, it was frankly conceded by his learned counsel during the course of arguments that he was transferred to the Power Wing in the Office of Director Accounts Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala on his own request made in writing. The respondents' case is that while he was posted as Accounts Assistant in the Office of Manager Finance (Coordination) he made an application through proper channel for his posting at Gujranwala and it was on his specific request that he was posted there. It is pleaded that seniority in the Water and Power Wing upto the cadre of Assistants Budget and Accounts, is separately maintained under sub‑rule (5) of rule 5 of Pakistan Wapda Accounts Service Rules, 1966.

8. There is only one material fact in this case. It is that the appellant was posted at Gujranwala in the Office of Director Accounts under the Chairman, Area Electricity Board on his own request in writing and that it was clearly written in the order of transfer that seniority will be assigned to him from the date he joined the Power Wing which was 15‑3‑1980. The order of transfer was not only passed at his instance, he also accepted it while being conscious of the fact that his seniority will be determined from the date of his posting in the Power Wing on 15‑3‑1980. The order was implemented in accordance with his own request and we do not think he has got the right to turn back and say that he does not accept his seniority from the date of posting in the Power Wing which was undoubtedly a separate cadre. The mere fact that seniority was allowed to him in accordance with the date of his original appointment in the Department in the earlier seniority lists of 30‑4‑1982 and 20‑4‑1988 is not of any consequence. The determination of seniority in the provisional seniority list was obviously the result of a mistake and we see no justification for holding that the competent authority did not have the power to rectify the mistake, regardless of the passage of time. The mistake was basic and the competent authority was legally within its powers to modify the earlier list and put the appellant at his proper place in the seniority list in accordance with the order of posting dated 2‑3‑1980. He accepted the condition that the seniority will be assigned to him from the date of joining the Power Wing and the fact that he was shown as senior in the earlier lists did not create any right in his favour.

9. This view is supported by the authority cited at the bar as 1991 SCMR 1526. The petitioner of that case joined WAPDA in 1966 and posted at Sargodha. He was transferred to Lahore on 15‑3‑1977 and his seniority was reckoned from the date of his joining at Lahore. In 1986, his seniority was determined with effect from 27‑2‑1966 by means of order dated 3‑12‑1966, but this letter was withdrawn on 31‑12‑1986. He approached the Service Tribunal for determination of his seniority after his representation was turned down by the competent authority. The prayer was that his seniority will be reckoned from the date of his original appointment on 27‑4‑1966. His appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal and he went to the Supreme Court with a petition for leave to appeal, which was refused with the observation that his transfer was made on his own request and since he had accepted the transfer order and did not make any grievance there was no justification for allowing seniority to him from the date of his appointment.

10. Merits apart, the appeal is also time‑barred. As we have seen from the facts, the appellant was informed by endorsement dated 23‑2‑1991 that his representation addressed to General Manager, Finance (Power) had been turned down. There was no justification for another representation to the Member (Power) WAPDA and he should have come to the Tribunal within 30 days of the communication of the earlier order of 23‑2‑1991. The appeal filed on 12‑6‑1991 is clearly time‑barred and it is not even accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.

11. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed as time‑barred and without any force. There will be no order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./801/Sr. F Appeal dismissed.