1983 PLP 658 (SCMR)

‑‑ Art. 212 (3) read with Punjab Irrigation Department Executive Engineers (Class I) Service Recruitment Rules, r. 15.2‑Dispute over fixation of seniority and application of r. 15.2‑‑‑Points raised by petitioner needing consideration‑Leave to appeal granted [Civil service]. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masoad Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Mumtaz Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 11th January, 1983. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑Leave is sought against the con solidated judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal dated 18th May, 1982 passed in Appeals Nos. 115 and 116 filed by respondent No. 2 and Tahir Abroad who bad filed a separate appeal

2. Facts giving rise to these appeals are that the respondent No. 2 and Tahir Ahmad had challenged the fixation of their seniority in the cadre of officiating Executive Engineers in Class I Service of Engineers in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Punjab by the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal, the two appeals were accepted and the seniorities fixed by the Government firstly on 14th October, 1972 and subsequently followed in the Notification dated 19th August, 1975 and lastly during the pendency of the appeals, were set aside, and tile respon dent No. 2 and Mr. Tahir Ahmad Malik were directed to be placed senior to the petitioners and other respondents (now added as respondents Nos. 4 to 37). The controversy between the petitioners and the contesting respondents is with regard to their placement in the seniority list of offi ciating Executive Engineers in Class I Service, The contesting parties were promoted as Executive Engineers on different dates. These two petitioners were originally appointed as temporary Engineers in the Department as far back as in the year 1950. They were formally induc ted into Class II Service by Notification issued in the year 1972 though they assumed charge on 14th October, 1955, as the date of such entry into service. The two petitioners became officiating Executive Engineers in 1959 and 1962 respectively, though by a notification dated 22nd July, 1971, it was said that they shall be entitled to Class I status with effect from that date.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the application) of rule 15.2 to the case of the petitioners had not been correctly made as this rule clearly states that the seniority of Class II Officers and temporary Engineers recruited to or absorbed in the service who were holding the posts of Executive Engineers or equivalent posts, shall be determined with reference to their continuous officiation as such. The petitioners were temporary Engineers and having been inducted into Class 11 from 14th October, 1955 were holding the posts of Executive Engineers from the years 1959 and 1962 respectively, as mentioned earlier, therefore, their seniority in Class I has to be determined on the basis of continuous offi ciating service from the aforesaid period ; that the learned Service Tribunal has misconstrued the explanation of rule 15.2 in their application to the present case holding that the case of the two parties was that of promotees from the cadres of the Assistant Executive En gineers (Class I Junior) to the cadre of Executive Engineers and since respondent No. 2 and Mr. Tahir Ahmad Malik had not been superseded by the petitioners, therefore, they continue to carry their seniority as Assistant Executive Engineers qua the petitioners. It was further contend ed by the learned counsel that it was not a promotion from Grade‑I (Junior) to that of Executive Engineer. The petitioners were, in fact, promoted earlier. It was lastly contended that in case rule 15.2 was not applicable, the only Rule which could determine the relative seniority of the parties was rule 15.4. Leave is granted as the points raised by the learned counsel need consideration. Leave granted.