1995 PLP 1505 (SCMR)

8. 8460566 Mr. Ajaz Oslum Khallel AE B/R 17‑5‑1971 (Promoted A/XEN w.e.f. 10‑12‑1971) 9. 8460565 Mr. Muslim Abbas Khan AE B/R 17‑5‑1971 10. 8460564 Mr. Aziz‑ur‑Rahman AE B/R 17‑5‑1971 11. 8460567 Mr. Muhammad Iqbal AE B/R 17‑5‑1971 12. 8460593 Mr. Muhammad Iqbal AE B/R 9‑10‑1971 13. 8460594 Mr. Mansoor Ahmed AE B/R 9‑10‑1971 14. 8470007 Mr.lslam‑ud‑Din AE B/R 18‑12‑1971 15, 8470001 Mr. Sardar Khan AE B/R 17‑11‑1971 16. 8470006 Mr. Muhammad Siddiqul AE B/R 18‑i1‑1971 17. 8470005 Mr. Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf AE B/R 23‑12‑1971 18. 8470021 Mr. Khawaja‑Zia‑ud‑Din Jahangir AE B/R 29‑1‑1972 19. 8460597 Mr. Asad Ullah Babar AE B/R 13‑11‑1971 20. 8470015 Mr. Muhammad Ajmal AE B/R ?‑12‑1971 21. 8470002 Mr. Muhammad Aziz Malik AE B/R 20‑12‑1971 22. 8470019 Mr. Malik Mumtaz Ahmed AE B/R 17‑1‑1972 23. 8470017 Mr. Syed Zahoor Hussain Shah AE B/R 1‑2‑1972 24. 8470012 Mr. Mahboob Khan AE B/R 1‑1‑1972 25. 8470010 Mr. Javed Ilahi AE B/R 24‑12‑1971 26. 8460560 Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Butt AE E/M 17‑5‑1971 27. 8460590 Mr. S.M.M. Mehdi Jaffari AE E/M 12‑8‑1971 28. 8460580 Mr. Niaz Ali Asad AE E/M 23‑6‑1971 29. 8460590 Mr. Akhtar Ali AE E/M 4‑10‑1971 30. 8460582 Mr. Safdar Ali Shah AE E/M 18‑6‑1971 31. 8460581 Mr. Nasser Akhtar Shaffai AE E/M 11‑6‑1971 32. 8460584 Mr. Sajjad Akbar AE E/M 17‑7‑1971 33. 8470027 Mr. Syed Muhammad Akhtar AE E/M 20‑3‑1972 34. 8460589 Mr. Zubair Khan Lodhi AR E/M 28‑6‑1971 35. 8470016 Mr. Ashiq Hussain AE E/M 16‑11‑1971

2. All the aforesaid Assistant Engineers after redesignation as Assistant Executive Engineers will, however, rank junior to all the existing Assistant Executive Officers regardless of their date of appointment.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed by way of redesignation of his post as Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f. 17‑5‑1971 whereas respondents Nos.4 to 14 were appointed directly as Assistant Executive Engineers on a later date, therefore, they should rank junior to him in terms of the letter in question. It was vehemently argued that notwithstanding the fact that respondents Nos.4 to 14 were directly appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers and the petitioner was appointed in consequence of redesignation of the post, the respondents would rank junior to him, in that, the respondents as well as the petitioner were existing employees on the issuance of the above letter, therefore, the petitioner being inducted as Assistant Executive Engineer earlier will rank senior to respondents Nos.4 to 14 who were appointed latter.

4. The controversy raised herein turns on the true scope of the letter dated 25‑7‑1975. The subject of the letter is "Redesignation of Graduate Assistant Engineers of the MES as Assistant Executive Engineers". It deals with two‑fold matters: First, redesignation of Graduate Assistant Engineers as Assistant Executive Engineers in order to allow them Class I status with effect from 17‑5‑1971 or the date of their appointment, and secondly, with the method of determination of their seniority inter se the existing Assistant Executive Officers. Needless to say that the heading/subject of a document plays an important part in its interpretation and construction and helps in ascertaining the object sought to be accomplished, yet the same by itself is not necessarily a part of the document but a name given to it by the maker. It is also an established rule that in construing a document one has to read it as a whole and not by picking and chosing a particular paragraph or portion thereof.

5. Para. 2 of the letter in question, therefore, is to be read in conjunction with the remaining part of the document. The letter when read as a whole leaves no manner of doubt that the phrase "all the existing Assistant Executive Officers regardless of their date of appointment" relates to the existing Assistant Executive Engineers other than those mentioned in para. 1 of the letter, and that there were in the field two sets of rules one relating to determination of seniority of Assistant Executive Engineers appointed in consequence of redesignation of the post and the other of the Assistant Executive Officers appointed otherwise. The seniority of each category so determined in the light of the policy decision reflected in the letter presented no conflict and therefore it had necessarily to be resolved by a reference to the letter itself which has been relied upon by the petitioner himself to claim benefit of seniority over respondents Nos.4 to

14. The opening part of the letter deals with the redesignation/promotion of the officers including the petitioner who are specifically so named therein and not with respondents Nos' 4 to

14. The phrase 'with effect the 17th May 1971 or the date of appointment, if later, refers to appointment of the persons mentioned in the letter alone who have been promoted/redesignated from the post of Graduate Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 17‑5‑1971 or on a later date as specified in the letter and not to the existing Assistant Executive Officers. Thus visualized, construction of the letter dated 25‑7‑1975 adopted by the learned tribunal would appear to be in accordance with the letter and spirit of the principles of seniority enshrined therein.

6. The le4rned counsel for the petitioner next placed reliance on S.S. Qureshi and 15 others v. The Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 5 others (1985 SCMR 1953) and S.H.M. Rizvi and 5 others v. Maqsood Ahmed and 6 others (PLD 1981 SC 612), to contend that the seniority list purported to be issued firstly in 1975 and secondly in 1989 ought to have been circulated to the officers concerned and their objections and representations invited and in the light thereof a final list ought to have been issued. It was urged that this was never done, in that, the seniority list has not yet been circulated, therefore, the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal 'was wrongly dismissed on the erroneous assumption that it was time‑barred. The above‑quoted judgments are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. A finding of fact has been recorded by the tribunal that the petitioner was aware of his seniority position in July 1975 on the issuance of the letter dated 25‑7‑1975 when his post was redesingated and he was relegated in seniority to 13 lower position as against his counterparts. The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded before us that after redesingation of the post he has been performing his official functions as Assistant Executive Engineer. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that after a lapse of 18 years the relief sought by the petitioner for correction of the seniority list was time‑barred, Reliance was also rightly placed by the learned Tribunal on judgment of this Court in the case of Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik (PLD 1990 SC 951) that when an appeal before the departmental authority was time‑barred, the appeal before the Tribunal was also incompetent on that account. In view of the above, we find no force in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused. M.BA./A‑1298/S Petition dismissed.