1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Abdul Ghani for Respondent No.

5. Date of hearing : 30th October, 1983. Salamat Ali Shah has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Conservator of Forests (P & E), Central Zone, Punjab, 24, Cooper Road, Lahore the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, Additional Secretary, Government of the Punjab (Regulations), S. G. A & I Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, Messrs Muhammad Yousaf, Abdul Ghani, Behram Khan, Muhammad Saleem Anwar, Gulzar Muhammad, Muhammad Shafi, Manzoor Ahmad, Ishfaq Ahmad, Muhammad Ayub, Fateh Ali, Muhammad Shafi and Abdul Hafeez as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned seniority list, dated 28th June, 1974 and the final order, dated 6th October, 1982 so far as these deny to the appellant the right of seniority from the date of his continuous appointment as Assistant from 22nd January, 1959 be set aside and the appellant be declared senior to the contesting respondents as Assistant as well as Superin tendent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined Forest Department as Junior Clerk on 15th October, 1949 and was confirmed as such in 1954. He was promoted as Senior Clerk w.e.f. 1st December, 1956 and was confirmed on 3rd September, 1957. The appellant was further promoted as Assistant w. e. f. 22nd January, 1959 and was confirmed on 7th June, 1963. The date of continuous appointment of the appellant as Assistant is 22nd January, 1959. Due to re‑organization of the Punjab Forest Department in 1962 the Office of the Chief Conservator of Forests, West Pakistan was abolished and regions were created w. e. f. 7th June, 1962. As a result of said re‑organization the appellant was placed in the Peshawar Region and he remained working there till his re‑allocation to the Punjab Province. A seniority list was issued by the respondent No. 1 on 28th June, 1974 in which the appellant was shown at Serial No. 61 below the contesting respondents Nos. 4 to

15. This was due to the reason that at the time of the re‑organization of the Forest Depart ment, the appellant was transferred to Peshawar Region. As the appellant had been working in the Peshawar Region before his re‑allocation to the Province of the Punjab, he was taken junior to the contesting respondents. The appellant's claim is that according to the West Pakistan Dissolution Order, the appellant was to be considered as repatriate from N.‑W. F. P. and given consequential benefit of seniority from the date of his continuous appointment as Assistant from 22nd January, .1959. Hence this appeal.

4. I have beard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the case of the appellant was referred to the Regulation Wing, S. G. A & I. Department for fixation of ‑the seniority of the appellant by the Forest Department and the following advice was conveyed to the Forest Department as per Annexure `P', which is repro duced as follows :‑

"The case was referred to the Regulation Wing, Services, General Administration and Information Department who has advised that at the time of Dissolution of One‑Unit, the official was serving in Peshawar Region. According to the West Pakistan Dissolu tion Order non‑Gazetted staff was to be allocated to the Province in which they were serving irrespective of their province of domicile. On the basis of this position Mr. Salamat Ali Shah can at the best be considered a repatriate from N.‑W. F. P. and given consequential benefit of seniority." The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that keeping in view the above advice of the S. G. A & I. Department which is quite clear, the appellant is entitled to his seniority from the date of his continuous appointment as Assistant i.e. from 22nd January, 1959.

5. I have also heard the view‑point of the learned District Attorney ; assisted by the representative of the respondents Nos. 1 to

3. He has relied upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondents on this appeal. It has been conceded by the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and by the Contesting Respon dent No. 5 (The only contesting respondent present at the time of arguing of the case) that the appellant is entitled to grant of seniority as Assistant w.e.f. 1st October, 1966 the date from which his next junior was promoted to the rank of Assistant. The appellant and appellant's counsel have also agreed with the above conception of the respondents and have consented for giving the seniority to the appellant as Assistant w.e.f. 1st October, 1966.

6. Keeping in view the above analysis and facts of the case, the appeal is accepted to the extent that the seniority of the appellant is fixed as Assistant w.e.f. 1st October. 1966 the date from which his next junior was promoted to the rank of Assistant with consequential benefits. There will be no order as to costs. M.I Appeal partly accepted.