1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The appellant, Parvez lqbal, was selected and appointed as L.D.C. in the WAPDA with effect from 10‑9‑1980. In April 1984, he was, by another order, directed to perform the duties of L. D. C /Meter Reader in Ittehed Colony temporarily in place of one Abdur Rashid, Meter Reader, who was on medical leave. In June 1984, another order was passed to the same effect appointing the appellant and another as LDC/MR temporarily. Thereafter, on 17‑9‑1985, the following order was issued: "Mr. Parvez Iqbal LDC of Ittehad Colony Sub‑Division as already entrusted the duties of LDC/;Meter Reader is hereby allowed to continue against the vacant post of LDC/MR under Allama Iqbal Town Division from the date he actually reports for duty as LDC/MR subject to the condition that the said official shall not claim his seniority in his new cadre."

2. Notwithstanding the above order which apparently encadres the appellant as LDC/MR, another order was passed on 29‑9‑1986 posting him as LDC and not as meter reader in Ittehad Colony against a vacant post. The appellant seeks to challenge this order on the ground that he having been encadred as Meter Reader subject to relinquishment of claim of seniority, could not be re‑transferred to the post of LDC without his consent.

3. The learned counsel for WAPDA says that the three orders passed in respect of the posting of the appellant were in fact the orders of his temporary appointment and not of his encadrement in the cadre of LDC/MR. This is correct in so far as the first two orders are concerned, but the order of 17‑9‑1985, which, we have reproduced above, clearly shows that the appellant was warned that he would not claim his seniority and he was inducted in the cadre of LDC/Meter Reader. It is curious to point out that thereafter his service book was also corrected accordingly and he was shown to have been encadred in the cadre of LDC/MR. The learned counsel for WAPDA, however, contends that subsequently this order was modified and that the appellant was never actually encadred in the cadre of LDC/MR. We find little substance in this contention. The order of encadring the appellant in the cadre of LDC/MR. was passed by the Superintending Engineer and having passed that order, it could not be rescinded without the appellant's consent. We are not impressed by the argument that this order was passed under some mistake of fact and was sought to be corrected by another order dated 20‑3‑1986, wherein it was stated that the appellant was temporarily assigned the duties of meter reader.

4. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been encadred in the cadre of LDC/Meter Reader with effect from 17‑9‑1985 from which date he will count his seniority in that cadre. We cancel the order of his reversion to the post of LDC.

5. Parties to bear their own costs, and be informed accordingly. S.Q./396/Sr. F ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.