Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual

Apprentice loco cleaners in Pakistan Railways sent for T-4 training course for a period of two years at the Walton Training Academy ('the Academy')

Question as to whether the respondents (apprentice loco cleaners) were entitled to the grant of annual increments for the period of two years training undergone by them at the Academy

Held, that Cl. 214 of the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual ('the Manual') provided that during their period of apprenticeship the apprentices were not eligible to be in regular employment of the Pakistan Railways

During the training period for the T-4 course, the Apprentices/ Stipendiary students did not qualify as regular employees of the Pakistan Railways and were therefore not entitled to service benefits which included annual increments that were undoubtedly an incident of regular employment

Service benefits corresponding to regular employment, namely, inter alia, annual increment was not available to apprentices as clarified in sub-clause (G) of Cl. 214 of the Manual.

Apprentice loco cleaners in Pakistan Railways sent for T-4 training course for a period of two years at the Walton Training Academy ('the Academy')

Question as to whether the respondents (apprentice loco cleaners) were entitled to the grant of annual increments for the period of two years training undergone by them at the Academy

Held, that Cl. 214 of the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual ('the Manual') provided that during their period of apprenticeship the apprentices were not eligible to be in regular employment of the Pakistan Railways

During the training period for the T-4 course, the Apprentices/ Stipendiary students did not qualify as regular employees of the Pakistan Railways and were therefore not entitled to service benefits which included annual increments that were undoubtedly an incident of regular employment

Service benefits corresponding to regular employment, namely, inter alia, annual increment was not available to apprentices as clarified in sub clause (G) of Cl. 214 of the Manual.

Civil servant/accused, who was serving as Fuel clerk, was proceeded against for misconduct as he allegedly maintained a bogus record on the asking of his superiors/co-accused

Competent authority awarded civil servant penalty of reduction by two steps in time scale for two years

General Manager of Railways/Appellate authority during hearing of appeal of some of the co-accused issued suo motu notice of enhancement of penalty to civil servant and thereafter enhanced the penalty to removal from service

Service Tribunal allowed appeal of civil servant and restored original penalty of reduction by two steps in time scale for two years

Validity

Nature of misconduct on part of civil servant/accused was distinct from that of the co-accused person, who were his immediate superiors and on whose asking he had made bogus entries

General Manager Railways/Appellate authority had to give prior notice to the civil servant in terms of Paragraph 1725(a) of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual and such notice had to specify the reasons for the proposed enhancement in penalty

Show-cause notice issued to civil servant did not explicitly give reasons for enhancement of penalty and merely mentioned that penalty originally awarded did not commensurate with the gravity of the offence

Finding of Service Tribunal were not arbitrary, against the record or the law declared

Railway authorities/petitioners had not raised any question of public importance within the meaning of Art.212(3) of the Constitution

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances and leave was refused.

Civil servant was proceeded against under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and punishment of compulsory retirement from service was awarded to him

­Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways without assigning any reason interfered with the order passed by the Competent Authority and imposed penalty of dismissal from service

Service Tribunal maintained the penalty and the appeal was dismissed

Validity

Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways in exercise of suo motu powers under paras. 1724 & 1725 of Pakistan Railways Personal Manual, could revise the order passed by Competent Authority after giving show-cause notice to the civil servant

­Such discretionary power in the matter of quantum of sentence must not be used arbitrarily and enhancement of sentence by Reviewing Authority without reasons would render the order illegal

Discretion exercised by Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways in the matter of quantum of punishment was without any justification and the punishment awarded to the civil servant by the Competent Authority would sufficiently meet the ends of justice

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was set aside

Appeal was allowed.

Civil servant was proceeded against under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and punishment of compulsory retirement from service was awarded to him

Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways without assigning any reason interfered with the order passed by the Competent Authority and imposed penalty of dismissal from service

Service Tribunal maintained the penalty and the appeal was dismissed

Validity

­Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways in exercise of suo mote powers under paras. 1724 & 1725 of Pakistan Railways Personal Manual, could revise the order passed by Competent Authority after giving show-cause notice to the civil servant

Such discretionary power in the matter of quantum of sentence must not be used arbitrarily and enhancement of sentence by Reviewing Authority without reasons would render the order illegal

Discretion exercised by Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways in the matter of quantum of punishment was without any justification and the punishment awarded to the civil servant by the Competent Authority would sufficiently meet the ends of justice

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was set'aside

­Appeal was allowed.

Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in cases of Pakistan Railways v. Shaukat Ali Hamdandi and others 1996 PLC 595 and Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185 the Pakistan Railways was justified to reject the employees' claim for one premature increment.

Reservation of 4 % quota for promotion to post of Group Inspector of Special Ticket Examiners from Head Ticket Collectors

Validity

General Manager, Pakistan Railways, by virtue of Rr. 79 & 157 of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, called out 4% quota for Head Ticket Collectors for promotion to post of Group Inspector of Special Ticket Examiners

Said action of General Manager was assailed through Constitutional petition before High Court, which petition was accepted and decision of General Manager was declared to be illegal and original 100% quota reserved for Group Inspector of Special Ticket Examiners was restored

Action of General Manager, Railways was for the reason that prior to allocation of such quota of 4 % , Head Ticket Inspectors were not entitled to promotion as Group Inspector of Special Ticket Examiners and in order to avoid such hardship and to provide prospects of promotion to them, General Manager called out 4% quota for Head Ticket Inspectors

Order passed by General Manager, Pakistan Railways who was empowered under Rr. 79L & 157 of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual to make rules in respect of non-gazetted Railway servants, reserving 4 % quota was within his competence and High Court was not justified to undo the same

High Court could not direct General Manager, Pakistan Railways to upgrade post of Head Ticket Collectors in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, in absence of any statutory provisions.

Reservation of 4 % of quota for promotion to post of Group Inspector of Special Ticket Examiners from Head Ticket Collectors

Validity

General Manager, Pakistan Railways, by virtue of Rr. 79 & 157 of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, called out 4 % quota for Head Ticket Collectors for promotion to post of Group Inspector of Special Ticket Examiners

Said action of General Manager was assailed through Constitutional petition before High Court, which petition was accepted and decision of General Manager was declared to be illegal and original 100 % quota reserved for Group Inspector of Special Ticket Examiners was- restored

Action of General Manager, Railways was for the reason that prior to allocation of such quota of 4 % , Head Ticket Inspectors were not entitled to promotion as Group Inspector of Special Ticket Examiners and in order to avoid such hardship and to provide prospects of promotion to them, General Manager called out 4 % quota for Head Ticket Inspectors

Order passed by General Manager, Pakistan Railways who was empowered under Rr. 79 & 159 of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual to make rules in respect of non-gazetted Railway servants, reserving 4 % quota was within his competence and High Court was not justified to undo the same

High Court could not direct General Manager, Pakistan Railways to upgrade post of Head Ticket Collectors in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, in absence of any statutory provisions.

Withdrawal of advance increments granted to civil servant, a stenographer in the Railways on the basis of improvement of his qualification

Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contentions that the rules invoked by the Service Tribunal were not applicable to the petitioner is that the Pakistan Railways having been declared to be a Federal Ministry, the qualification prescribed for the post of Stenographer by the Federal Government in the year 1969 vide O.M. No. F.27/61/69-F.II, dated 23-9-1969, being Intermediate, the qualification prescribed in the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual as B.A./B.Sc. stood superseded and that the petitioner had been promoted from the post of stenotypist to that of the Stenographer in contradistinction to the direct recruitment, therefore, the basic qualification as B.A./B.Sc. for him was irrelevant.

Withdrawal of advance increments granted to civil servant, a stenographer in the Railways on the basis of improvement of his qualification

Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contentions that the rules invoked by the Service Tribunal were not applicable to the petitioner in that the Pakistan Railways having been declared to be a Federal Ministry, the qualification prescribed for the post of Stenographer by the Federal Government in the year 1969 vide O.M. No. F.27/61/69-F.II, dated 23-9-1969, being Intermediate, the qualification prescribed in the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual as B.A./B.Sc. stood superseded and that the petitioner had been promoted from the post of stenotypist to that of the Stenographer in contradistinction to the direct recruitment, therefore, the basic qualification as B.A./B.Sc. for him was irrelevant.

Leave to appeal was granted to examine that Pakistan Railways having been declared to be a Federal Ministry, whether qualification prescribed for the post of stenographer by Federal Government being Intermediate, qualification prescribed in Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual as B.A./B.Sc. stood superseded; and whether petitioner having been promoted from the post of steno typist to that of stenographer in contradistinction to direct recruitment, basic qualification as B.A./B.Sc. for him was irrelevant.

Leave to appeal was granted to examine that Pakistan Railways having been declared to be a Federal Ministry whether qualification prescribed for the post of stenographer by Federal Government being intermediate, qualification prescribed in Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual as BA/B.Sc. stood superseded; and whether petitioner having been promoted from the post of steno typist to that of stenographer in contradistinction to direct recruitment, basic qualification as BA/B.Sc. for him was irrelevant.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider, inter alia, as to whether, General Manager, Pakistan Railways was competent to enhance penalty imposed upon respondent (employee) by Authorised Officer, without holding regular inquiry under provisions of rules applicable in the matter.

Running allowance which was being drawn by employee prior to his retirement, was refused to him after his retirement on ground that same was not a part of pay

Running allowance being a part of pay according to R.2(11)(c) of Manual, employee was entitled to receive same along-with his pay for period claimed by employee.

No second departmental appeal is allowed under provisions of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual.

Appellant was appointed as Signaller, Grade-I, was selected for qualifying course of Station Master which he successfully qualified

Appellant, as a Signaller was confirmed prior to respondents who initially joined as Signaller

Appellant was, however, granted seniority in Station Master's group not from the date of original confirmation but from the date of appointment in Station Master's group and was therefore placed junior to respondents

Appellant was nominated for P-2 Course prescribed for promotion in cadre of Station Masters on basis of this seniority

Nomination of appellant was later on withdrawn by officials but appellant had completed course after obtaining stay order from Civil Court and then joined duties in capacity of Station Master

On representation of respondent, with regard to refixation of seniority of appellant and after hearing appellant Divisional Personnel Officer revised seniority of appellant and allotted him his original seniority

Appellant was confirmed as a Signaller earlier than respondents and was selected for qualifying course of Assistant Station Master

Order of selecting appellant to undergo P-2 Course for further promotion was based on the decision fixing seniority and was passed by competent authority after hearing affected parties but order of General Manager withdrawing said seniority was passed without hearing appellant which was void being against principles of natural justice

Last order after giving show-cause notice to appellant was passed by Divisional Personnel Officer reverting him to original seniority, held, was illegal as it was passed by authority who was junior to the authority who accorded/sanctioned fixation of seniority and order of Divisional Superintendent passed in pursuance thereof

Order was passed by said authorities after decisive step had been taken after fixation of seniority

Said order thus could not be rescinded

Order revising seniority of appellant having been passed without hearing the appellant, said order therefore could not be considered'a fair order passed on merits

Appellant was restored his original seniority, in circumstances.

Petitioner, a fitter in Railways, was removed from service for manhandling his Foreman, was, however, reinstated in service by Labour Court who disallowed back benefits for reasons that there was no averment of having remained unemployed during intervening period and decision of Labour Court was affirmed by Labour Appellate Tribunal

Petitioner seeking direction for payment of back benefit by contending that under Rule 337 of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual Vol. I, he was entitled to same was misconceived because the said Rules envisaged submission of a duly sworn affidavit on rupees five non-judicial stamp paper vouching earning certificate for period in question which had not been furnished to authorities nor any averment to that effect was made before Labour Court

Impugned order was thus unexceptionable

Petition also suffered from laches and no satisfactory explanation for a long delay of 4-1/2 years had been tendered

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Suspension beyond period of three months without its review after every three months not prohibited in case Government servant concerned was accused of criminal liability

Appellant's case was governed not by Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, but by Regulation 194-A of Civil Service Regulations which did not require review of suspension order after every three months

Order of suspension running beyond three months was not suffering from any illegality

Appeal against order was dismissed in circumstances.

Absence admitted with explanation that it was not wilful and was due to illness and applications with medical certificates had been submitted

Inquiry, being necessary to prove facts regarding illness and sending of applications by employee; termination of his service after mere show-cause notice was wrong.

Services terminated without enquiry and opportunity to give grounds for remaining absent, held, amounted to condemnation unheard and thus not sustainable.

Non-obtaining of a declaration from person transferred from one category to another that he would rank junior to those already working, held, would not affect right of seniority of those already working m such category.

Admissibility for workers working on festival holidays.

Allowance covered by R.5(d) is mileage allowance calculated at the rate of miles travelled and allowed in lieu of overtime

Railway employees covered by said rule, held, could not claim overtime wages besides mileage allowance

Engine drivers give eight hours duty and since engines are changed alongwith drivers they do not give duty beyond eight hours under normal circumstances

Provisions of Cl.(g) of R.5 become applicable if engine fails and failure is not due to any fault of driver and thus they can claim 1/8of one day's pay for every extra hour spent by them.

Claim of widow of Railway Servant who died during LPR period resisted on plea that since application for gratuity was not given by deceased within one month of retirement therefore he was not entitled to same-Plea rejected

Held, provision not being mandatory petition could be given even beyond one month.

8.213-B and subsidiary R. 4(ii) Efficiency and Discipline Rules-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3)-Railway employee convicted by Court of law for criminal offence-Departmental punishment

Competent authority should consider and decide whether in circumstances of case removal from service short of dismissal would meet ends of justice

Grievance petition against dismissal from service of convicted employee dismissed by Labour Court

Petitioner's plea that he was neither charge-sheeted nor inquiry held against him

Labour Court, held, rightly concluded that it was not necessary-

Suit of petitioner-plaintiff, engine driver of respondent- Railways, for declaration that he was entitled to special travelling allowance during the days he used to take passenger train to India decreed by Trial Court but dismissed by District Judge observing that it did not lie only for a declaration and that suit should have been one for recovery of money

Parties having argued on all points, case treated as a Pacca case as if revision petition was admitted

Frame of suit by which declaration was sought in relation to a monetary benefit was not legally tenable and in fact it should have been a straight suit for recovery of money when impugned special allowance was being claimed for past period

Defect although technical, but its consequences were far-reaching as a new suit would be totally barred by O. II, R. 2, C. P.C.

Plaintiff had a cause of action as his visits to India were not denied and others were paid special travelling allowance but he was denied same on some discrimination due to his previous litigation with respondent- Railways on some matter

Amendment in pleadings, held, could be allowed even in revision

Application accepted and petitioner allowed to amend plaint- -Revision petition also accepted, judgment and decree of Appellate Court set aside and case remanded to Trial Court for fresh trial after taking amended plaint from petitioner- plaintiff.

Phrase "as far as possible" would mean that direction was not mandatory—Such possibility, held, was to be determined by Administration

However, it was for AU- ministration to prove that possibility existed against petitioner

Administration having failed to prove such circumstances as would justify its action, petitioner's version stood proved.

Appointment on ad hoc basis, in circumstances, deemed as temporary appointment and seniority to be determined from date of appointment

Seniority disturbed on basis of completion of training

Rules, in circumstances, held, violated.

Promotees, held, were entitled to premature increment.

Grievance petition for grant of Travelling Allowance-Requirement of law is that workman should have secured and guaranteed right in respect of Travelling Allowance or Daily Allowance

Claim of employee about travelling allowance, held, was not a secured right

Such right could only be settled according to r.15-D, Personnel Manual, Chap. No.1II

Grievance petition was, therefore, misconceived and dismissed in circumstances.

Case having not been properly handled before Labour Court on behalf of establishment and proper evidence being not produced, case was remanded to Labour Court with direction that after affording last opportunity to parties for production of proper evidence, same be re-decided.

Employer can transfer an employee but transfer out of city in which employee is residing may be ordered only when it is necessary in exigency of service

Low paid Railway employee (Electric Muawan) placed under suspension but nothing established against him, therefore, re-instated but transferred to other station

Neither necessity of transfer established nor approval of Divisional Superintendent obtained

Order of Labour Court declaring impugned transfer order as mala fide and without authority, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

S. 5, r. 6-Seniority-Vision failed employee-Seniority on absorption against post in which absorbed-Countable from original date of appointment and not from date of absorption-Station Master declared fit for C-I due to vision failing and absorbed as Goods clerk-Held: Senior to those appointed as goods clerk after date of his original appointment.

R. 337-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3)-Re-instatement - Back benefits - Decision as to back benefits in respect of Railway employee-To be taken by competent authority-Whether or not employee remained unemployed during intervening period to be decided by competent authority-Order of Labour Court holding petitioner employee not entitled to back benefits set aside by Appellate Tribunal enabling competent authority to decide whether petitioner remained unemployed during intervening period.

Notification No. 12, dated 15-6-1977 modified and amended ab initio vide notification, dated 15-1-1978 thereby excluding 55% running allowance for calculating dearness allowance and same allowed on basic pay only

Subsequent notification, held, within power of Railways Administration

Such act, held, neither involved estoppel nor objectionable for being retrospective

Objection that amended notification not applicable to those already in service

Rejected

Such employees however, held, got a vested right by getting dearness allowance calculated on pay including 55% running allowance for period prior to subsequent notification hence no recovery on that account could be made from them

Administration, held, could fix their pay according to subsequent notification for period thereafter- General Clauses Act (X of 1897), Ss. 6 & 21.

Reversion, in circumstances, held, illegal and order of Labour Court awarding re-instatement with back benefits upheld by Appellate Tribunal

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)) Ss. 25-A & 38(3).

Railway employees allowed 10% increase upon basic pay for purposes of fixation in revised pay scale—55% running allowance, held, rightly not included in basic pay while calculating 10% increase.

Art. 4(10) read with Railways Board letter, dated 17th December, 1969 and Pakistan Railways Extraordinary Gazette, dated 18th January, 1975-Confirmation - Wiremen promoted as Assistant Electrical Charge-men and Electrical Charge-men-Completing over three years service after promotion-Confirmation not made on plea that posts against which promoted were temporary-Posts, in circumstances, held, had to be made permanent and such employees having completed over three years service after promotion were entitled to confirmation

Order of Labour Court directing confirmation of such employees on posts in which they were working from dates of assumption charge in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal - Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3).

Rr. 3(c) & 401 and Appendix-I-Promotion-Can be made on recommendation of selection committee consisting of three officers-Promotion of skilled workers in Grade-5 to post of inspecting Mistri-Trade test taken by committee consisting of two officers only-Test thus taken, in circumstances, held, of no effect and Labour Court justified in setting aside result of such test directing respondent (Railways) to promote petitioners (employees) according to rule-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3).

Rr. 2043 & 2044(a) and Appendix XXXI - Suspension -Railway employee involved in criminal case-Not arrested or sent to prison-Suspension, held, not warranted-Employee suspended and reinstated after acquittal by -criminal Court - Received suspension allowance during suspension period-Claim for full pay rejected on plea that acquittal was not honourable - Employee claiming full pay in addition to suspension allowance already received-Having not taken to task departmentally, employee, in circumstances, held, wrongly suspended and on termination of suspension would be considered to have been honourably acquitted entitling him to full emoluments which he would have been entitled to but for suspension minus suspension allowance already received.

Vol I, para. 510 (a) (iv)-Retirement benefit-Not within discretion of Railway Administration - Fireman incapacitated-Offered post of Shedman but not accepted-Allowing retirement benefit to such employee, held, not within discretion of Administration -Order refusing retirement benefit set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3).

Railway workman - Date of birth entered in service record disputed-Workman illiterate and service record bearing neither his signatures nor thumb-impression-Entry in such record-Not binding upon workman - Medical certificate not indicating that workman examined for determination of age -Workman when applying for correction of entry of age in circumstances, held, should have been medically examined for age

Entry in service record indicating that workman was over-age on date of recruitment and no relaxation thereof on record-Retirement order based upon entry in service record despite application of workman for its correction and without getting him medically examined, in circumstances, held, not sustainable-Appellant (workman), in circumstances awarded re-instatement with back benefitsPakistan Railways, Personnel Manual, r. 106(b) Appendix I, cl. (4) and r. 915(2)(c) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3).

Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual R. 2044, cls. (a) & (b)-Suspension period-No charge-sheet served-Period of suspension after re-instatement-To be treated as duty with wages.

S. 25-A-Grievance petition pertaining to promotion-Claim that respondent was junior but promoted instead of petitioner-Seniority list showing respondent as senior circulated long before not challenged-Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed as time barred reckoning limitation from date of circulation of seniority list-Respondent on transfer from other section placed senior to petitioner-Transfer not challenged-Plea that seniority could not have been changed without notice-Plea rejected and unchallenged transfer of respondent in circumstances, held, was a sufficient notice-Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, r. 610.

S. 21-Locus poenitentiae-Order not taken effect can be withdrawn-Principle of locus poenitentiae-Does not mean that such order should be withdrawn-Railway employee seeking premature retirement after completing 25 years service qualifying for retirement on grounds of domestic trouble-Such application accepted and order of competent authority- communicated to employee directing that his retirement would take place on expiry of three months' notice given by him-Meanwhile application made for withdrawal of request of retirement-No sufficient grounds mentioned-Retirement order in circumstances, held, could not be sought to be withdrawn unless a strong case for withdrawal of request for retirement made out and employee debarred to withraw his request-Premature retirement-Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, Vol I, r. 801 (b)

R. 4 (9) (ii) read with Subsidiary r. 1-Withholding of increment Term W. I. P.-Means withholding of increment permanently for specified period-Not alien to rules and not illegal.

Petitioner posted as Relieving Assistant Station Master and remaining as such for more than 4 months-Travelling Allowance claim except for 10 days refused for such period-Claim, in circumstances, held, not admissible under Rules and dismissal of grievance .petition by Labour Court on ground that no guaranteed right was infringed upheld by Appellate Tribunal.-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38.

Seniority in grade in which absorbed-U. D. C. absorbed as T. C. R. Grade II-Seniority neither to be given from original date of joining service or date of absorption-Determining factor-Pay-Shall rank junior only to those T. C. R. Grade II who on date of his absorption -were in receipt of rate of pay not less than that granted to him.

Period - Extendable from 4 months only with due consideration by competent authority-Supension on account of arrest due to criminal charge-Not necessarily to continue till decision by Court-Official arrested but released on bail-Not to remain on suspension necessarily without due consideration by competent authority-Officials arrested under S. 304, Penal Code released on bail Kept under suspension over 3 years on contention that suspension was to continue throughout pending trial-Suspension order, in circumstances, set aside by Labour Court-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A.-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 304.

Railway servant-Confirmation cannot precede date of appointment-Seniority to be determined by date of confirmation which cannot be earlier to date of appointment-P. W. R. Personnel Manual, Advance Chap. I, S. 4, Art. 2.