1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).‑‑‑The brief facts of this appeal are that the appellant Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim joined WAPDA as an Laboratory Assistant with effect from 21‑5‑1968. He was transferred and posted as Field Assistant at. Tarbela vide order dated 3‑9‑1971. In 1975, the appellant was transferred to Mona‑Project, Bhalwal. The Mona Project Director (respondent No.1) prepared and circulated a seniority list of sanctioned posts of the Field Assistants, Laboratory Assistants, Computer and Guage Readers. The name of the appellant appeared at Sl. No‑3 to the said list. On the basis of this seniority the appellant was awarded Selection Grade‑9 with effect from 1‑7‑1983. However, the appellant was reverted to his original Pay Scale No.6 with effect from.l‑7‑1983 vide order (impugned order), dated 10th December, 1994.'

2. The appellant submitted his representation/appeal against the said impugned order on. 18‑12‑1994 but it was rejected vide letter dated 13‑11‑1995, received by the appellant on 25‑11‑1995. The appellant, therefore, has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal with prayer; to set aside:‑‑ (i)order dated 10‑12‑1994 whereby he has been reverted to his original Scale No.6; and (ii) order dated 13‑11‑1995 whereby his request to write off an amount of Rs.16;844 received by him as selection grade employee with effect from 1‑7‑1983 till his reversion back to his original grade, has been rejected. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that impugned ‑ order, reverting him back to original scale, was without notice. He was not afforded an opportunity to be heard personally. The appellant was assigned seniority as SL No.3, was awarded selection grade in BPS‑9 he also got move‑over in BPS‑

10. This all created his vested right under the principle of locus poenitentiae. As such, his reversion back to Grade‑6 and recovery o Rs.16,844 would not be right. While reverting the appellant to BPS‑6, no cogent reason was assigned, while passing the impugned order. This too was not right. He, therefore, pleaded that impugned order so passed be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand resisted the appeal contending that the appellant did not submit the correct position of the case before the Tribunal: He invited our attention to the fact that the actual date of appointment of the appellant in his present grade viz. Field' Assistant in the seniority list was erroneously written as 23‑5‑1968 instead of 14‑9‑1971. This fact came to knowledge, of the authority when another' Field Assistant Mr. Muhammad Akhtar who was senior to the appellant, as he was appointed in the same grade with effect from 7‑10‑1968, submitted his representation against the appellant. As a result, the seniority was revised, and Mr‑ Akhtar was given due seniority and selection grade, and the appellant was reverted to his original grade, based on his appointment against the Mona Project. '

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, also pointed out that the appellant should have made an appeal, as required under the law, against the impugned order, soon after it was passed, either to next higher authority i.e. Chief Engineer (P & 1) WAPDA, Lahore (respondent No.2) or he should have come to the Tribunal immediately. But instead, he submitted an appeal to the Project Director (respondent No.1) requesting therein to write off recovery , accrued as a result, of his reversion to BPS‑6 which too was not acceded to.

6. He, therefore, argued that since no legal infirmity has been committed by the respondent, the appeal, therefore, be dismissed.

7. We have heard both the parties and gone through the documents placed oh the file. .

8. The appointment letter of the appellant shows that he was appointed purely on temporary basis, and was liable to be terminated at any time or one month's notice. The office order dated September 3, 1971 reveals that, on having been rendered surplus in Chashma Barrage Project WAPDA, Kundian, he was transferred and posted as now Field Assistant against the existing vacancies, with M/s. TAMS Tarbela. From Tarbela again he was posted as Field Assistant in Mona Project, Bhalwal. The order dated 27‑11‑1983, whereby he was awarded selection grade in BPS‑9 clearly indicates that he was given selection grade as an employee of the Project. 9 The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant has all along been the employee of the Projects. As such in every project, his employment has been treated as fresh employment. As such he should take his seniority from the date of appointment in the project. Since, his appointment in the seniority was erroneously shown as 23‑5,1968 instead of 14‑9‑1971, on pointing out through representation by Mr. Akhtar, the action to correct such mistake, was within the rights of the Competent Authority and we endorse their action as it is correct under the law.

10. The representation submitted by the appellant shows, it did not challenge the impugned order, but rather it contained his request to write off the recovery being a poor man and having a large family. The right course for the appellant was to challenge it, to the next authority, which he did, not. Even otherwise he was erroneously allowed seniority and the selection grade, which do not confer upon him the vested right, as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal having no substance, is dismissed. However, keeping in view, that, the appellant is low‑paid employee and has large family, we urge that the respondent, purely on the humanitarian grounds, to write off his recovery. No order as to costs. Parties be informed. Appeal dismissed.