Reversion

Contention of the employees was that they had the right for appointment and benefits under Ss.4 & 16 of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ('the Reinstatement Act, 2010')

Reversion under the Reinstatement Act, 2010

Scope

Held, that employees, were undisputedly reverted to their original posts within Intelligence Bureau through Notification dated 19-02-1997

Through Memorandum dated 06-01-2011, employees were given the option to resume service on the post of Inspector in a higher Scale (BS-17) than the scale in which they were serving upon being reverted to their original post in 1997

Employees were advised by the said Notification that they would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the post in which they were being reinstated and regularized and that they would not be entitled to any additional compensation pursuant to S.16 of the Reinstatement Act, 2010, and that they would have no right to claim seniority or arrears of pay after being promoted to BS-17

Through later circular dated 03-02-2011, respondent (DG Intelligence Bureau) advised all Heads of the Intelligence Bureau Wings that the option offered to the employees of the respondent by memorandum dated 06-01-2011 could not be exercised on conditional basis and pursuant to the said memorandum, the employees accepted the option offered to them under the said memorandum

Preamble and other provisions, including S.2(f) of the Reinstatement Act, 2010, stipulated that the intent of the Legislature was to create a beneficial legislation for various categories of employees who were dismissed, removed or terminated from service within the period specified in the Reinstatement Act, 2010

Employees were never dismissed/removed/terminated from service and were only reverted to lower posts against which they held lien

Employees remained in the service of respondent all along

Reversion of the civil servant or employee was not a subject matter within the Reinstatement Act, 2010

Reinstatement Act, 2010, neither created any right for a civil servant or employee that had been subjected to reversion to a lower post within specified period nor a mechanism to remedy an employee aggrieved by such action

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order and judgment passed by the single bench of High Court dismissing the constitutional petitions of the employees/appellants

Intra-Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Authority up-graded the post of Stock Auditors/Stock Verifiers from BPS-15 to BPS-17 by re-designation as Deputy Manager with the condition that same would be personal to the officers

Validity

Competent authority approved re-organization of Internal Audit Department and up-gradation of petitioners as Deputy Managers

Up-gradation was distinct from promotion

Up-gradation was restricted to the post and not with the person occupying the same and it could not be made to benefit a particular individual

Post was to be up-graded in the manner prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for that particular post

Petitioners' post had been up-graded which was person specific and certain conditions had been imposed

Conditions imposed through impugned order were unjustified and not sustainable in law

Once policy decision was taken by the competent authority then after fulfilling the pre-conditions the post could not be reverted back to its original position

Vested right had been created in favour of incumbents of post in question

Impugned order had been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the employees

Person specific up-gradation was not permissible under the law

Petitioners' post had been up-graded on completion of 18 years of required service

Subsequent insertion of adverse condition was uncalled for in circumstances

Condition so imposed was declared to be without any legal and lawful justification

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

Appellant had challenged the notification whereby he was reverted from the post of Senior Civil Judge to the post of Judicial Magistrate on the ground that he had no knowledge of the proceedings against him and he had been condemned unheard

Burden of proof

Departmental representation submitted by the appellant was refused on the ground that it had been filed beyond the prescribed period

Validity

Period provided for submitting a representation/departmental appeal to the Departmental Authority was sixty (60) days as per Balochistan Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1983

Appellant's application, after the exclusion of the provided period of sixty days, was submitted five months beyond the said provided period

­Appellant had to show reasonable cause on basis of which the delay so occurred could be condoned; he had only taken the plea that he had no knowledge about the impugned orders however, the burden was exclusively on him to establish his respective plea

Contents of the appellant's representation stated no reason for the delay

Contradictory stand had been taken by the appellant on the date of him acquiring knowledge of impugned orders

Representation filed by the appellant was beyond the prescribed period and the delay was without any reasonable cause or any ground for condonation of delay

Appeal was dismissed.

Major penalty of reversion from the post of grade-III (B-11) to grade-I (B-8) was imposed upon the appellant on the allegation of misconduct and corruption, after issuing him show-cause notice and charge-sheeting him, but without holding any enquiry against him

Appellant had been reverted two steps down, which -was not the spirit of the law

Order of reversion did not specify the period of penalty

Penalty had been imposed on extraneous consideration which was not the subject of the occurrence, but he was penalized on the basis of his past record, which could not be taken into consideration

No regular inquiry was made while the penalty fell into the category of major purview which could not be imposed without holding a regular inquiry

Order imposing penalty was bad, in circumstances

Impugned order was set aside with direction to the authorities to restore the appellant in his original position of Grade-III (B-11) from the date of impugned order.

Appellant who was a Ward Keeper in BS-10 in Pakistan Railways, was appointed as Assistant Controller of Store against 5% promotion quota reserved for employees getting high degrees, but subsequently he was reverted as Ward Keeper

Departmental appeal of the appellant having not been responded, he filed appeal before the Service Tribunal

Appellant had claimed that he had acquired higher qualification by getting B.Sc. degree in Civil Engineering from abroad

Validity

Such degree from foreign University, had to be recognized by the Pakistan Engineering Council and for that, registration with the Council was essential, but appellant did not get himself registered with the Engineering Council

Degree obtained by appellant from foreign University, therefore, could not be taken into consideration

Appellant having not been registered with Pakistan Engineering Council, department was justified in. not taking into consideration his higher academic qualification

Appellant was promoted from BS-10 to BS-17 by the Officer, who was not competent to pass such promotion order

Promoting an official to BS-17 was the prerogative of the Secretary/Chairman of Pakistan Railways

Appellant, in circumstances, was not lawfully promoted and withdrawal of order of promotion was legally justified

Departmental appeal of the appellant was not filed within the stipulated period and was time-barred

Appeal by the appellant, being not competent was dismissed as not maintainable and being without any merit.

After change in government and departmental head the civil servant was reverted to the post of Deputy Director (B-18) on the allegation of lacking qualification

Validity

Reversion of civil servant from the post of Director to the post of Deputy Director was not sustainable as he was appointed legally and validly by competent authority in accordance with prescribed rules

Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the judgment passed by Service Tribunal as well as the order of reversion passed by authorities

Supreme Court restored the civil servant to the post of Director (B-19) by maintaining notification of his appointment as such with all consequential benefits

Appeal was allowed.

Return implies that the incumbent must have held the lower post at some point of time and from which he was promoted in service

In its immediate effect, reversion is always bound to bring about a reduction in rank and connotes a movement downward from a higher position already held by a civil servant

Reversion from higher to lower post of civil servant may be made under certain circumstances

Question of reversion can only arise when a valid and proper promotion has been made

Direct recruit- to a post cannot be reverted to a lower post; it is only a promotee who can be reverted from promotion post to lower post from which he was promoted.

Appellant, while serving as Junior Clerk in the office of Deputy Inspector-General of Police, applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector which application was forwarded to the Inspector General of Police for favourable consideration

Pending appointment, appellant was deputed to undergo A.S.-I.Ps. training at Police Training School and while on training, appellant was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police

Appellant successfully completed training and he started performing his duties as A.S.-I. of Police, but suddenly, after giving show-cause notice to appellant, he was reverted to the 'post of junior clerk

Appellant's appointment as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was purely a fresh one and not of change of cadre

Contention of Authority was that appellant's case was that of change of cadre from the post of junior clerk to the post of A.S.-I.P., which, under the law, was not permissible and that it was for that reason that appellant was reverted to his substantive rank of junior clerk-Validity-Contention of authorities was misconceived and the official had exercised suo motu powers which under law were not available to him

Order of reversion passed in absence of appellant, had no legal value under the law

Appellant had already acquired a legal, valuable and vested right in his favour

Rule of locus poenitentiae i.e. the power of receding till a decisive step was taken, was not available to the official

Impugned orders whereby appellant was reverted, being not sustainable, were set aside and appellant was ordered to be restored to his rank of officiating Sub-Inspector from the date of his reversion.

Appellant, while serving as Junior Clerk, was appointed as A.S.-I. Police (B-9) and started performing his duties as such, but suddenly was reverted to his original post of Junior Clerk

Appellant, along with others was restored to his rank of A.S.-I. Police with the orders of Chief Minister and was confirmed as such

Once again appellant suddenly and without any legal proceedings, was reverted to the post of Junior Clerk

Appointment of appellant as A.S.-I. Police was purely a fresh appointment and not that of change of cadre and he was restored to the post of A.S.-I. Police with the approval of Chief Minister on recommendation of three members Committee

Provincial Police Officer being subordinate to the Chief Minister could not pass orders of reversion of appellant to the post of Junior Clerk

Order of reversion of appellant being coram non judice, could not be sustained

Authority had exercised suo motu powers, which under the law were not available to him

Order of reversion passed in absence of appellant had no legal value under the law

Appellant having already acquired a legal, valuable and vested rights in his favour, rule of locus poenitentiae, i.e., the power of receding till a decisive step was taken, was not available to the Authority

Impugned order of reversion being not sustainable, was set aside

Appellant was restored to his rank of officiating Sub-Inspector from the date of reversion with all back and consequential benefits.

Appellant was reverted from the post of Assistant Director to that of National Savings Officer as she failed to qualify departmental examination within three chances availed by her

Appellant having failed to qualify the departmental examination during period of probation which included extended period, competent Authority was authorized to take suitable action against her

Punitive action (reversion) against appellant was duly supported by various provisions of relevant Rules including R.6 of Recruitment Rules of National Savings Organization, S.6(2)(b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 and R.21 of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973

Order of reversion, however, was passed without issuing show-cause notice and without providing chance of personal hearing to the appellant

No punishment could be effected without affording personal hearing to affected person

Appellant was entitled to show-cause notice as envisaged under S.12(3) of Civil Servants Act, 1973

Such omission was of a serious nature and was enough to vitiate order of reversion of appellant

Direction was given that notification reverting appellant to the post of National Saving Officer, be withdrawn

Department, however would be within its right to proceed against appellant by issuing him show-cause notice and also affording her an opportunity of personal hearing.

Civil servants who were reverted to lower posts had alleged that, though their pay was protected, but their allowances were not protected and they had requested that their allowance be protected in the same manner in which their pay was protected

Authorities had contended that pay was substantial right of employees whereas an allowance was not given as of right and that for allowance the appeal could not be filed in Service Tribunal

Validity

Normally a civil servant on retirement gets pension on emoluments which he was drawing at the time of his retirement

Term `emoluments' would include pay and many other allowances permissible by rules

Authorities were not totally correct in saying that allowances were not part and parcel of pay which was drawn by a civil servant

Civil servants could not be deprived of allowances which they were getting with their pay in their original scales.

Further contention of appellants was that they had been made victims of discrimination as many employees who were junior to them were allowed to remain at their original posts whereas they being senior were demoted

Validity

Provisions of S. 11-A of Civil Servants Act, 1973, had given ample powers to the Authorities to absorb surplus employees either in same grade or on non-availability of vacancies iii the same grades on posts of lower grades

Since the pay of surplus employees was protected, Authorities had not violated any law or rule in reverting the appellants

Authorities, in circumstances; had power to post appellants against posts of lower grades

Allegations of appellants that they had been posted against lower posts despite existence of vacancies and that their juniors were not reverted and they, despite being senior, had been reverted, required consideration and grievance of appellants in that respect could be resolved by Authorities by providing appellants opportunity to produce evidence to prove that vacancies as alleged by them were existing and that their juniors had been promoted

Authorities were directed to decide said matter within specified period.

Civil servant working in Grade-5 as Junior Clerk was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Grade-9 only on his simple application, which had shown a great favour to him by the Authority without assigning any good reason

Appointment of civil servant in Grade-9 was not a fresh appointment as formalities of fresh appointment, like advertisement of post in question, constitution of Selection Committee, had not been observed

Appointment of civil servant in Grade-9 was a change of cadre

In absence of any provision of change of cadre in Police Rules, civil servant was rightly reverted to his original rank of Junior Clerk in Grade-5.

Civil servants. who were competently promoted and confirmed as Inspectors and were duly admitted to List "F", were reverted to rank of Sub-Inspectors by withdrawing earlier order of confirmation as Inspectors and their names were also removed from List "F" despite civil servants were declared senior to cocivil servants who were probationers

Authority had submitted that civil servants were shown senior to said probationers/co-civil servants by mistake of Departmental functionaries and that said mistake hail been rectified by reverting the civil servants

Validity

Civil servants were not to suffer for alleged mistake of Departmental Authorities especially when showing of civil servants as senior to co-civil servants was not a mistake, but in view of evidence on record they were rightly shown senior to co-civil servants

Principle of "locus poenitentiae" would play its role effectively in case of civil servants

For a long period of 15 years in which civil servants remained promoted in various ranks and their names were placed in seniority lists as well as in Lists "D", "E" and "F", Authority had never raised objection that civil servants were junior to ca-civil servants or that they were mistakenly shown senior to said co-civil servants

After such a long period Competent Authority could not be allowed to undo seniority and promotion of civil servants with one stroke of pen for no fault of civil servants as they were never proceeded against for misconduct or inefficiency

Civil servants having earned seniority and promotion through numerous ordeals, trials and tribulations, Authority was not legally and morally justified to put an end to the same simply on basis of its sweet-will and whim

Orders whereby civil servants were reverted and their names were removed from List "F" were set aside.

Civil servant appointed as Director (B-19) was reverted to post of Deputy Director (B-18) on the ground that his appointment as Director was irregular and was procured through illegal manna

Validity

Appointment of civil servant as Director proved to be tainted with legal procedural infirmities of substantial nature which rendered same to be null and void and illegal ab initio for the reasons; firstly that before selection of civil servant, existing rule with regard to qualifications and experience for post of Director was Master's Degree in Engineering with 12 years'experience, but as civil servant was not so qualified, said rule was promptly changed, just to accommodate him

Secondly as per recruitment policy minimum period for receipt of applications for that vacant post was thirty days from advertisement, but in case of civil servant only eight days were allowed, thus violating the recruitment policy

Had thirty days'period been allowed for entertaining applications a lot more of aspiring candidates could have filed applications for the post; thirdly the only other contesting candidate was at higher footing qua civil servant as he had foreign Master's Degree in Engineering (Telecom) with snore than six years'experience as against civil servant who was having Simply five years'experience and was only a Graduate and despite that civil servant was given preference over contesting candidate which smacked of injustice; fourthly, no written test was conducted and no merit list was prepared and civil servant was seated simply on interview basis for which no record was maintained; and fifthly, as per Recruitment Policy, recruitment was to be made in the mouths of February and August each year whereas interview of civil servant was conducted during the month of March and advertisement was also floated in the same month

No reason, unavoidable circumstances or urgency was shown for resorting to such hasty procedure

One of the members of Interview Committee was close relative of the .civil servant

Norms of justice and rules of transparency demanded that relative of civil servant should not, have acted as member of the Interview Committee

Interview/selection Committee was not properly constituted as the competent authority or its representative was not associated therein

Appointment of civil servant as Director (B.P.S.19) being tainted with legal procedural infirmities, he was rightly reverted to his original post of Deputy Director (B. P. S.-18)

Civil servant was appointed on recommendations of Public Service Commission, but subsequently when the Commission found that civil servant had secured selection on basis of bogus degree, proceedings were initiated against him and after issuing show-cause notice and hearing him, Commission, withdrew its recommendation on allegation of furnishing wrong information, whereupon Authority reverted the civil servant from post

Constitutional petition filed before High Court against the reversion was dismissed being incompetent

Validity

Order withdrawing recommendations of Public Service Commission and reverting appointment of civil servant, were passed after providing personal hearing to civil servant and after applying independent mind - by the Commission and Authorities

Civil servant who was found guilty. of offence had failed to bring on record any material against the Commission and Authorities to show any malice

Civil servant was rightly reverted in circumstances.

Employee who was appointed as lineman, performed manual, clerical and technical duties without any administrative, supervisory and managerial powers

Employee whose services were extended, was included in seniority list and was given annual increments as were permissible to other regular employees

Employee who was working as lineman, was reverted as Cooli which reversion was challenged by employee in his petition filed under S. 22-A(8)(g), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969

Petition of employee was challenged by employer contending that employee who was engaged on work-charge basis, was not a permanent workman and could not challenge his reversion

Employee who had rendered 5 years' services as lineman, would be deemed to be a permanent workman who could challenge his reversion and National Industrial Relations Commission, had exclusive jurisdiction to redress grievance of employee by bringing some element of unfair labour practice of employer

Employee who had attained status of permanent employee, could not be reverted summarily.

Employee, who got promotion superseding as many as 54 co-employees by approaching Chief Minister, having failed to justify his promotion, was reverted to his original post when aggrieved co-employees who were seniors to him including President of Labour Union lodged protest against such out of turn promotion

Mere fact that employee was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before his reversion, would not give rise to a cause in his favour

Authority, even no less than Chief Minister had to act in accordance with law, rules and regulations of services and principles of natural justice

Employee, thus, was rightly ordered to be reverted.

Employee though was appointed against temporary vacancy and his services were liable to termination at any time without notice or without assigning any reason, but practically he had remained in service as Technician carrying Scale-8 for four years and six months, before he was reverted to a post in Scale 5 and his services had been extended from time to time

Labour Court, in circumstances, had rightly concluded that even if the job of employee was temporary, same had been converted in character into a permanent post and that employee could not be reverted without any show-cause notice and without imputing to him any allegations constituting misconduct.

Promotion/appointment of petitioner being on ad hoc basis in excess of quota reserved for promotees and against a post meant for initial recruitment, on arrival of rightful person, he would stand reverted in normal course

No question of law of general public importance being involved, leave to appeal refused.

S. 10-Probation-Reversion-Animus revertendi or loco poenitentiae, principle of Petitioner appointed by competent authority after , relaxing relevant rule competently and appointment made subject to certain conditions and such conditions fulfilled by appointee-Sub- r, sequent reversion of petitioner to a lower post, held, not justifiable. on plea of petitioner having been appointed on probation and services of probationer could be terminated competently-Case, held further not a case of termination of service but one pertaining to domain of principle of animus revertendi, i.e. recall of basic order of appointment, and required to be decided with reference to such principle alone and not on basis of S. 10, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974

[Civil services].

S. 4-Reversion-Appellant admittedly promoted in a resultant vacancy with clear condition that he will automatically revert to his original post on joining respondent-Appellant, held, having accepted terms and conditions of promotion cannot now resile from that position, in circumstances.

Promotion of semployee permanent if not expressly provided otherwise-Reversion could not be ordered without show-cause notice

It declaratory suit by such servant, against order of reversion, grant of temporary injunction would be one for compelling reasons and would be justified.

Reversion Reversion-Notification re-reverting Government servant from "officiating" appointment to "substantive rank" for reasons of "inefficiency"-Further correction effected by a later Notification by inclusion of an additional reason viz., "misconduct" Notification held, in order .