2001 PLP 252 (SCMR)

QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.

By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the abovementioned two identical petitions for leave to appeal which are meant to impugn the judgment, delivered on 3-11-1998 by the learned Federal Service Tribunal dismissing Service Appeals Nos.324 and 325(R) of 1998 filed by the petitioners Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Hanif.

2. The brief facts necessary for the present purpose are these. The petitioners are serving as Stenographers in F.1.A. Headquarters. They were granted Selection Grade by the Director-General, F.I.A. vide order dated 25-10-1993. However, the said order was cancelled by the same authority, vide order, dated 24-7-1994, on acceptance of the representation made by three colleagues of the petitioners that they were senior to the petitioners. Taking exception, the petitioners tiled appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, after fulfilling the requisite formalities. Their appeals were accepted on 4-7-1995 and the petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed by this Court on 6-12-1995. At the conclusion of the litigation a fresh seniority list of the stenographers was issued on 30-5-1997 by the department wherein the petitioners were shown senior to their aforementioned three colleagues, respondents Nos.4 to 6 herein. Feeling aggrieved the said respondents filed a departmental appeal which was allowed, the seniority list issued on 30-5-1997 was cancelled and the original seniority list issued on 6-1-1997 was restored. The petitioner preferred departmental appeals and thereafter filed appeals before the Tribunal but the same were dismissed on 3-11-1998. Hence, these petitions.

3. The seniority list of Stenographers circulated on 6-1-1997, wherein the petitioners were shown junior to the respondents, was restored in the light of the decision of the Establishment Division (Regulation Wing) which is worded thus:-- "The matter has been considered in the Establishment Division. It may be stated that in terms of section 8(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, seniority is to reckon-in a post and not grade. Further, in terms of F.R. 30(16), normal scale and selection scale are two scales of the same post and placement 'in selection scale of a civil servant does not change his duties and designation. In view of the above rule position, the placement in selection scale of the Junior S/Grapher earlier than their seniors, cannot infringe the actual seniority position of Stenographers in the F.I.A. The action of the F.I.A. in maintaining seniority list of S/Graphers on the basis of date of placement in selection scale is not, therefore, in accordance with the law. The request of Messrs Ejazul Haq and Abdul Sattar for showing them senior to Messrs Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Hanif on the basis of their dates of regular appointment as S/Graphers (BPS-15), is therefor, in order."

4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the post of Stenographer Selection Grade was a distinct and a higher post, the decision of the Establishment Division (Regulation Wing) was incorrect being inconsistent with S.R.O. 248(1)/88 which had categorised the post of Stenographer Selection Grade as a separate higher post to that of Stenographer simpliciter, Fundamental Rule 30(16) was not applicable and the petitioners having been promoted to the next higher post of Stenographer Selection Grade prior in point of time had automatically become senior to the respondents. Reliance was placed on 1991 SCMR 696 and an unreported judgment of this Court passed in Civil Appeals Nos.37 of 1997 etc. on 13-1-1999.

5. The learned Deputy Attorney-General, present on the Court notice, on the other hand supported the impugned judgment by making submissions akin to the reasons highlighted therein.

6. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are devoid of force. No doubt the petitioners were granted selection grade (BPS-16) prior in point of time but they cannot claim seniority over the private respondents for the simple reason that they were not promoted from a lower to higher post. Grant of selection grade is not a promotion in strict A sense of the word though it has overtones of promotion in view of the financial benefit involved. The expression selection grade is confined to revision of Basic Pay Scales and does not find mention in section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993 under which seniority-list of civil servants is required to be prepared with reference to a service, cadre or post and not grade. Guidance is also provided by F.R. 30(16) which reads as under:-- "A question was raised whether for the purpose of F.R. 30 appointment to the selection grade of a cadre involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to posts in the ordinary grade of that cadre. Ordinary grade and the selection grade are two grades of one and the same post. Promotion of a person from the ordinary to the selection grade of a grade does not mean a change of posts and consequently does not involve assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance for the purpose of F.R.30."

7. There is no conflict between the advice of the Establishment Division (Regulation Wing) and S.R.O: 248(1)/88 inasmuch as the petitioners as well the private respondents are holding the posts of Stenographers, specified in the Schedule, and the assertion that the posts being held by the petitioners are separate and distinct is more imaginary than real.

8. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not deal with the controversy involved in the instant case. The ratio of he case reported as Government of the Punjab v. Muhammad Awais Shahid and 4 others (1991 SCMR 696) is that whenever there is a change of grade or post for the better there is an element of selection involved that is promotion and it is not earned automatically but under an order of the competent authority to be passed after the due consideration on the comparative suitability and the entitlement of those incumbents. The second case pertains to promotion of the incumbents of the posts of sub-Engineers in B-16 to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers in B-17 in the light of two seniority lists and the Recruitment Rules of 1984. Consequently, leave is declined and the petitions are dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-182/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed