1990 SCMR 137 (PLP)

M. Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. M. Anwar, Deputy Director, WAPDA and Khan lmtiaz Mohammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th May, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J.‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the acceptance by the Service Tribunal, of respondent's service appeal. As the appeal is going to be disposed of through an agreed order, therefore, it would suffice to reproduce the statement of facts and the controversy involved as contained in the leave grant order. The relevant part whereof reads as follows:‑ "The respondent is an employee of WAPDA. He was promoted as Line Superintendent‑11 on 1‑11‑1980 but on the basis of some representations made by other employees that they were senior to him, the said order was reversed vide order dated 9‑6‑1984 and he was reverted as L/M‑

1. Feeling dissatisfied, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was accepted vide order dated 9‑7‑1985 on the ground that he should have been heard before the order of his promotion dated 1‑11‑1980 was reversed. Hence this petition. Mr. Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate, who argued the matter before us on behalf of WAPDA submitted that Riaz Ahmad, on whose representation the respondent was reverted, was, indeed, senior to him. He had been ,promoted under the mistaken assumption that he had been appointed as L/M‑I on 8‑6‑1970, whereas he had, in fact, been appointed as L/M‑11 on the said date and it was only by mistake that he was shown to have been appointed as L/M‑I in his Service Book and that this mistake was corrected vide letter No. 5960‑fib dated 18‑6‑1970 of the Superintending Engineer, against which the respondent had not raised any protest. It is further submitted that he was, indeed, regularly promoted as L/M‑I vide order dated 1‑11‑1974 for the first time; that it was the mistaken entry regarding the appointment of the respondent as L/M‑1 since 8‑6‑1970 a which had resulted in his being promoted as L/M‑II earlier than his seniors and that this mistake had been corrected vide the impuged order and that no hearing was necessary before such a correction was made. In this connection, he also pointed out that in the order of promotion of the respondent dated 1‑11‑1980 it was clearly mentioned that the promotion was provisional and on a purely temporary basis and that the promotions were liable to reversion on account, inter alia, of wrong fixation of their seniority, without any notice to them. In the face of such a conditional promotion the respondent could not feel aggrieved by the order of his reversion, as his promotion was made on an erroneous view of his true seniority. These submissions require further consideration. Leave to, appeal is, accordingly, granted." After some discussion it has been realised that some factual assumptions have been made on the submissions made from the appellants' side. And further that the respondent might have made submissions if duly heard by the concerned authority with a view to correct or rebut the pleas raised from the appellants' side. That being so, it was a proper case for the Tribunal to have remanded for proceeding in accordance with law after hearing the respondent. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the appellants states that the opportunity of hearing even now can be afforded to the respondent and in case the previous orders impugned before the Tribunal are upheld, the intervening arrangements and actions, it may be clarified, would not be disturbed. Learned counsel for the respondent agreed to this suggestion made by the learned counsel for the appellants. We while disposing of this appeal order accordingly. The appellant/concerned authority shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent and other concerned persons. If the orders earlier impugned before the Tribunal are upheld, the departmental actions/arrangements and other orders passed in the meanwhile, shall have effect accordingly. On the other and if the orders impugned before the Tribunal are not upheld and different orders are passed, the consequential adjustments/orders may then be passed dealing with the intervening period. In the light of what has been stated and with the foregoing observations this appeal is disposed of. A.A./W‑71/S Order accordingly