1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Department had clarified that the promotion given‑to the appellants were irregular, as these were not ordered by competent authority and thus these orders were incompetent. Referring to the case of one junior Zahid Saleem, he had mentioned that it did not pertain to the cadre of the appellant and thus it could not give a support to the grievance of the appellants. As such Zahid Saleem was allowed to continue ‑‑as Foreman (B‑16)/Instructor (B‑16), because his services were direly needed for Director training. He had added that others referred in the appeal viz. M/s. Yaseen, Rehman Ali and Abid Siddiqui were since senior, the appellants had been reverted to accommodate/promote the seniors in their place. Further, he had mentioned that M/s. Baber, Javid and Anwar Bashir were also senior to the appellants and they had been given Selection Grade (B‑16) in accordance with the rules.

4. The learned counsel had brought out at Bar that after promotion of the appellants as Foreman (B‑16), there were lot of complaints against them for which the respondent Department had made a Committee of one Chief Engineer and two Directors to enquire into the matter and give their report. In the findings they had found out that the promotion given to the appellants were not in order. The relevant part from the Inquiry Report dated 2‑8‑1993 in respect of findings is reproduced below:‑‑ "FINDINGS: The Committee is of the view that promotions of M/s. Tariq Shah and Shabbir Ahmed as Foreman Electrical are not in order. Similarly Mr. Azharul Hassan and Hamaish Gul as Foreman Mechanical are not in order. Senior Officials having earned good Annual Reports with recommendations for promotion in their own turn by the Initiating Officers of the Section should have been given promotion as they were fulfilling all the necessary conditions prescribed by the Authority for promotion." Later on there was another Inquiry Committee comprising of two Chief Engineers and three Directors as Members, wherein it was found out that six senior persons M/s. Akhter Shah, M. Iqbal, M. Hussain, Khizar Hayat, Tahir Abbas‑and M. Ilyas who were senior to Shabbir Ahmad and Tariq Shah had not been considered for promotion as Foreman Electrical and ignored and on Mechanical side seniors, M/s. Yaseen, Rehman Ali and Abid Siddiqui had been ignored, whereas Hamaish Gul, Azharul Hassan and Zahid Saleem appellants had been promoted. The Committee had also felt that maintaining combined seniority list had led to legitimate ‑grievances to senior persons stating that these seniority lists should have been maintained separately cadre‑wise of Mechanical ail Electrical disciplines. Seniority list of Maintenance Staff and Operation Staff should have also been segregated and thus separately maintained cadre‑wise for promotion and other benefits. Relevant extract from the recommendations are given below:‑‑‑ "(a) The Committee has been told that two posts of Foremen are vacant and in order to finalize the problem M/s. Akhtar Hussain Shah and Muhammad lqbal may also be promoted as Foreman with effect from the date their junior colleagues viz. M/s. Tariq Shah and Shabbir Ahmed were promoted. (b) There is no substance in the appeals of M/s. Muhammad Hussain, Khizar Hayat, Tahir Abbas and Muhammad Ilyas because they have never worked on Maintenance side and are not eligible for promotion as Foreman. Their appeals may be rejected. (c) On Mechanical side the promotions have been ordered in accordance with the practice and seniority of those employees who had the background on maintenance. The appeals of M/s. Muhammad Yaseen, Rehman Ali and Abid Siddiqui, who do not have background of maintenance have no merit and deserve to be rejected. (d) The Committee also feel that maintaining of combined seniority list leads to legitimate claims by the senior persons with no background of a specific branch and should have been maintained distinctly. The seniority list of maintenance staff and operation staff should be segregated and maintained separately for promotion and advancement benefits."

5. Although there was clear recommendations of the high‑powered Committee to make the promotions in accordance with the seniority and service record, but the respondent Department had not followed these in toto and promoted the officials by pick and choose method without following a proper seniority list and service record. Even after withdrawing the order of promotion of the appellants, one Zahid Saleem who was junior to Azharul Hassan, his promotion had been kept intact, whereas he was also required to be reverted under the rules.

6. On the Mechanical side, we find that there is substance and force in the appeal of Azharul Hassan, because he stands much senior to Zahid Saleem who stood promoted as Foreman. As such the reversion order of Azharul Hassan was mala fide, void and did not have the support of relevant rules. The appellant Hamaish Gul was, however, junior to Zahid Saleem. On the Electrical side both the appellants Shabbir and Tariq Shah were much junior to Messrs Akhtar Hassan Shah and M. Iqbal etc. The reversion of these appellants seems to be in order. It is also borne out from the record that there were some vacancies of promotion of Foreman and others equivalent posts of B‑16 and against these vacancies senior most persons with proper service record should have been considered and promoted. There were also some other vacancies of B‑16 and equivalent posts in selection grade against which the senior officials should have been considered for such appointment. The Department had made promotions by picking and choosing some juniors and ignoring some seniors. This was done in violation of the relevant rules and ignoring the seniority.

7. After hearing the parties and examination of the relevant record, we find that there is force and merit in the appeal of Azharul Hassan who has wrongly been reverted, whereas his junior Zahid Saleem stood promoted. We accordingly accept his appeal and set aside the order, dated 17‑11‑1993 to the extent of his reversion, because he is senior to Zahid Saleem and his reversion was not legally sustainable. We remand the other remaining Appeals Nos. 151,152 and 153(R)11994, filed by the appellants M/s. Shabbir, Tariq Shah and Hamaish Gul and direct the respondent Department to consider them for promotion/selection grade in accordance with the relevant rules and seniority within next three months considering the seniors first for promotion as Foreman (B‑16) and then for Selection Grade (B‑16) etc. With these observations and directions these appeals are disposed of accordingly. However, after the decision of the respondent Department, if any appellant still feels aggrieved, he will be at liberty to take any legal recourse for remedy and relief. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.???? H.B.T./1081/Sr.F ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.