2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AFTAB AHMED (MEMBER). ‑‑‑Since the facts and law involved in all these three Appeals Nos.942, 943 and 944(R) of 1999 are identical it is proposed to dispose them of by this single judgment.

2. The sole question determination in all the appeals is "from which date a civil servant is to count seniority in the new appointment after having been declared surplus by his previous department"

3. The background of the appeals is that all the three appellants who had been employees of Agriculture Census Organisation were declared surplus vide Office Order, dated 29‑5‑1997 and were later absorbed in the Collectorate of Sales Tax Rawalpindi as Key Punch Operators vide office order dated 21‑7‑1998. It appears that the respondents Messrs Kamran Ellahi, Muhammad Yunis and Muhammad Hussain were promoted as Data Coder vide office orders dated 7‑11‑1998 and 11‑1‑1999 on the basis of seniority list available at page 18 of the appeal. This gave a cause of action to the appellant who claimed themselves senior to the respondents on the basis of their continuous appointment since 1980 in the Agriculture Census Organisation. Accordingly they filed departmental appeals against the promotion and seniority of the respondents. The departmental appeals of all the appellants were rejected by 'the Competent Authority vide order, dated 18‑3‑1999. Hence the present appeals were filed with the Tribunal within a month of the final order.

4. Arguing their case Mr. Amin‑ur‑Rehman Khan, Advocate submitted that the appellants were entitled to count their‑seniority from the date of regular appointment in their previous department of Agriculture Census and that on being declared surplus they were entitled to carry their seniority with them and should have been granted seniority in the new department of Collectorate of Sales Tax accordingly. In this connection learned counsel relied on 1991 SCMR 514, judgment of the Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 876 and 877 (R) of 1997, 175(R) of 1998 and Civil Appeal No. 1212 of 1998.

5. Defending the departmental case Syed Alamdar Raza, Advocate assisted by Mr. Mahboob Alam, Section Officer, Establishment Division and Mr. Amir Sultan, Law Officer, Sales Tax Department submitted that after the promulgation of seniority rules providing criteria for determining the seniority of the Civil servants appointed in a particular post or cadre on transfer, the case‑law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant was not applicable and the seniority of the appellants on joining the new department after being declared surplus, was to count from the date of their appointment in that cadre/post. In support 'of their arguments they relied on the case of S.M. Farooq v. Muhammad Yar Khan reported as 1999 SCMR 1039 and the current judgments of the Tribunal in Appeal No:338(R) of 1998 Mazhar Hussain Makhdoom v. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and 1098(R) of 1998 Khalid Rashid Chaudhry v. Establishment Division.

6. We have carefully examined the arguments and perused the record. There is no doubt that before the promulgation of 1993 Seniority Rules the instructions/principles governing the question of determination of seniority of the surplus civil servant on his adjustment/absorption were in favour of the appellants and were being applied accordingly. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants are based on those principles/instructions. However, by the promulgation of Seniority Rules, 1993, the old instructions/principles to seniority are no more attracted and applicable and have been rendered ineffective by the abovementioned development of law. The case‑law cited by the respondent's side is based on the Seniority Rules, 1993. In the case of S.M. Farooq v. Muhammad Yar Khan (1999 SCMR 1039), Hon'ble Supreme (107urt held that the seniority in service/cadre or post by transfer would take effect from the date of regular appointment of a civil servant to said service, cadre or post and the civil servant on his appointment, by transfer, would rank junior to those who were already serving in permanent capacity in the same grade and that it was in consonance with the principles of justice and fairplay because service rights of a civil servant in absence of any rule, could not normally to be affected. It was further 'held that a civil servant who till the date of his absorption continued to be member of his service cadre unless transferred and absorbed on account of conscription, his seniority in the transferee department had to be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment against the permanent post.

7. In view of what has been discussed above we hold that the three appellants absorbed/adjusted in the Collectorate of Sales Tax, having been declared surplus in their parent departments, have to count seniority from the date of such absorption in accordance with the Seniority Rules, 1993 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by the Tribute in the recent judgments of Mazhar Hussain Makhdoom and Khalid Rashid Chaudhry The appeals having no merits are dismissed, with no order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./88/FST Appeals dismissed.