1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A. O. RAZIUR REHMAN (MEMBER).‑

This appeal has arisen out of a decision of the relevant authorities pertaining to the seniority of direct recruits vis‑a‑vis promotees to the posts of Chargemen in the Pakistan Ordnance Factories, Wah Cantt.

2. The Appellants who are promotees from the posts of Supervisor claim that they were promoted as Chargemen with effect from 16thJanuary, 1980 and are, therefore, entitled to count seniority from that date, whereas, the respondents, who were appointed as Chargemen/ Pro bationers with effect from 4th August, 1979, but completed their ‑respective periods of probation on different dates between 30th May, 1980 and 20th June, 1980, could count seniority only with effect from the dates on which they, respectively, completed their periods of proba tion. According to them it was not the basis of this principle that the appellants were placed senior to the respondents in a seniority list prepared immediately after the completion of the probation by the respondents, but were wrongly and unjustly relegated to lower posi tions later, after the respondents had agitated the matter and made representations to the P. O. F. Board, who yielded to their demand and placed them senior to the appellants, on the basis of the principle that seniority would count from the date of initial appointment to the cadre in question.

3. After hearing the parties and perusing the relevant documents, we have come to the conclusion that a very simple case has been unneces sarily complicated through confused thinking and lack of understanding of the rules on the part of the Chairman and Members of the P. O. F. Board, who, at first, refused to concede the rightful claim of the respondents but later relented and rectified the mistake initially commit ted by them.

4. Admittedly, the respondents were appointed as Chargemen/ Probationers on the basis of the Chargemen/Probationers Scheme publish ed by the P. O. F. Board, vide their memo on the subject, dated 14th April, 1979, wherein the period of probation for Chargemen has been laid down as 2 years and it has been provided that the seniority of each batch of Chargemen/Probationers would be maintained batch‑wise. This is in tune with the normal rules applicable under Government. Since the respondents were recruited as Chargemen/Probationers in one batch, with effect from 4th August, 1979, they would all count seniority from this date. The contention of the Appellants that the Chargemen/Probationers should reckon seniority with effect from the dates of their successful completion of probation has no legs to stand on, since the specific rules framed in this behalf do not say that the probation period is not to be counted as regular service. On the contrary, since the very concept of probation implies appointment on regular basis, there can be no other inference than that regular service is to be counted from the date of induction into service ‑and not, as argued by the appellants, from the date of posting on a regular job. In this connection, reference to section 6 (1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 should clinch the issue. The exact words used in this section are: "An initial appointment to a service or lost referred to in section 5, not being an ad hoc appointment, shall be on probation, as may be prescribed."

5. To add to the above, section 8 (3) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 lays down that "Seniority on initial appointment to a service, grade or post shall be determined as may be prescribed." Since the rules relating to the Chargemen/Probationers, Scheme' already quoted, lay down that each batch of Chargemen/Probationers will count its seniority in its chronological order, we are unable to see any merit in the claim put forward by the appellants that the seniority in the case of the respondents should not be counted from the date the batch was selected for appointment and inducted into service but from the date on which they completed the period of probation.

6. We also do not see how the impugned decision adversely affects the interest of the appellants. The appellants are promotees, who were formerly Supervisors and were promoted as Chargemen with effect from 16th January, 1980. They are fully entitled to claim seniority with effect from this or any other date from which they were promoted. They are also entitled to claim seniority over Chargemen/Probationers appointed in the same year. But, by no stretch of imagination, can they claim seniority over those appointed to the, same cadre in a previous year. Since the respondents were selected and actually inducted into the cadre on 4th August, 1979, the appellants, who were promoted in 1980, cannot get priority over them and cannot be treated as senior to them.

7. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that there is no merit in the appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed. A. B. Appeal dismissed.