1987 PLP 957 (SCMR)

equivalent. Grade‑20 Colonel (with 18 to 20 years commissioned service) and equivalent. Grade‑19 Major and equivalent Grade‑18 Captain and equivalent and Lt. and 2/Lt. and Grade‑17 equivalent." Thus, according to the principle of equivalence approved by the President the Brigadiers were equated with Grade‑20 appointees in the National Pay Scales. The National Pay Scales, it may be mentioned, were introduced on 1‑3‑1972. On 17‑8‑1981, a seniority list of the Secretariat Group Officers was circulated and herein the seniority of Brig. Sher Ali Baz was reckoned as from 1‑9‑1975 i. e. the date on which he was treated as having joined the Federal Secretariat. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a departmental appeal to the President asserting that his seniority should have been recokoned as from 1‑3‑1972 (the date on which National Pay Scales were introduced) as he was a Brigadier even prior to that date. This appeal, however, was rejected, whereupon Brig. Sher Ali Baz moved the Service Tribunal in Islamabad. The said appeal was heard alongwith the appeal of Brig. Abdul Rashid (C.P.S.L.A. 140/R/86) in which too a similar question arose. (The difference between the two cases only was that Brig. Abdul Rashid had been promoted as Brigadier on 2‑10‑1973 after the introduction of the National Pay Scales and regularly inducted in the Secretariat Group as Joint Secretary with effect from 7‑10‑1978. He, therefore, was claiming seniority as from 2‑10‑1973 when he became a Brigadier). Both the appeals were, however, dismissed. The leading judgment was recorded by the Chairman (Mr. Justice Shah Abdur Rashid) and the following portion thereof may usefully be reproduced below:‑ "Our attention was also drawn to the Establishment Division's O.M. No.2/2/75‑ARC, of 12th April, 1976 (pages 767‑768 of the Estacode), wherein under para. 9 it has been provided that the seniority of Joint Secretaries (which is a post in grade‑20) will be determined from the date of continuous regular officiation in on which they rose to NPS 20 in their service or 1‑3‑1972 as the case may be, and that the letter of 8th August, 1979 when read with the Establishment Division's O.M. referred to above, contemplates that the Brigadiers are also to be given seniority from the date from which they became Brigadiers or from the date from which the Natinal Pay Scales were introduced i.e. 1‑3‑1972 whichever is later." This contention was disposed of as follows: ‑ "As far as the Office Memorandum of 8th August, 1979 is concerned, it does not say that the Brigadiers can count their seniority of the army service when they are inducted into civil service. This O.M.. in fact, lays down a guideline which is to the effect that if a Brigadier is inducted into civil service, he should be considered for a grade 20 post and that if a Major General and equivalent is considered for civil service, he should be inducted either in grade 21 or in grade 22 post. It has nothing to do with the question of seniority, but only lays down a guideline for appointment of persons of the Armed Forces in the civil service. The fact cannot be denied that the seniority in accordance with section 8 of the Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) has to be determined by the provisions of the Act itself or by rules made in this behalf. There is no special provision either in the Act or in the rules which may provide the basis on which the seniority of an Army Officer when inducted into civil service can be counted. No doubt, the appellants when holding rank in the Army were in the 'Service of Pakistan', nevertheless the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the rules made thereunder did not apply to them at that time. In the circumstances, as long as no special rule is made with respect to the counting of service in the Armed Forces, the "General Principles of Seniority" would hold the field, according to which a person when inducted into a service shall count seniority from the date of such induction. In accordance with the law that exists, we are firmly of the view that the service under the Armed Forces has no relevance whatsover for counting the seniority in the Secretariat Group. The appellants cannot, therefore, claim seniority on the basis of their army service". Mr. M.S. Siddiqi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the view taken by the Service Tribunal is erroneous. He pointed out that this was not a case of induction but a case of equating a military rank with a civil appointment in terms of National Pay Scales. Para 9 of the Secretariat Group Rules was the rule which dealt with seniority and the lacuna that existed in Rule 9 of the Secretariat Group, namely, the absence of any mention of army appointees to Grade‑20 posts was supplied by the order of equivalence, dated 8‑8‑1979, whereby the previous service of the Brigadiers was equated with Grade‑20 and they were placed at par with other officers appointed as Joint Secretaries in the Secretariat Group. Reliance was also placed on clause (f) of Rule 2 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, which provided:‑-- "2(f)"Grade" means a National Scale of Pay in which a post or group of posts is placed." The learned counsel also drew our attention to the clarification of Rule 9 given by the Establishment Division in its O.M. No.1/1/75 ARC‑II, dated 4‑4‑1973, namely:‑ According to para. 10 of the Establishment Division Office Memorandum No.2 /275‑ARC, dated 21st February, 1975 (now para. 9), the seniority of a Joint Secretary which is a post in Grade‑20 will be determined from the date of his continuous regular officiation in Grade‑

20. Some doubt seems to exist about the correct interpretation of this provision. The provision is explained below.

2. Posts in what was formerly Senior Administrative Grade were placed in National Pay Scale No. 20 with effect from 1st March, 1972. Therefore, the holders of Senior Administrative Grade could not be said to be in Grade‑20 earlier than 1st March, 1972. Consequently, the seniority of an officer who had been holding a post in Senior Administrative Grade and was later appointed as Joint Secretary, would be reckoned from Ist March, 1972 or date of appointment as Joint Secretary, whichever is earlier." On the basis of the above submissions the learned counsel contended that para. 9 of the Secretariat Group Rules was a provision which governed the question of seniority and was the relevant rule under which the seniority of the parties was to be determined as provided in subsection (3) of section 8 of the Civil Servants Act,, 1973. The question raised is one of law and of considerable public importance. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted in both the cases. The appeals will be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any, and put up for hearing as early as possible. S.Q./S‑21/S Leave granted.