Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: LIAQAT ALI JAFFERY VS Respondent: DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1033
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Before Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Member
LIAQAT ALI JAFFERY
Versus
DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 5 others
Appeal No. 1217 of 1994, decided on 16th May, 2001.
(a) Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑R. 22‑‑‑Ad hoc appointment‑‑‑Status‑‑‑Ad hoc appointment would not confer any right on the persons so appointed as conferred on regular appointment to the same post nor would count towards the seniority in the grade.
(b) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.7‑‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, Rr.8 & 22‑‑‑Regularization of ad hoc appointment‑‑‑Seniority, determination of‑‑‑Period of service of civil servant who was appointed on ad hoc basis, was extended from time to time and after more than one year from his appointment his services were regularized ‑‑‑Co‑civil servants who were also appointed on ad hoc basis though prior to the civil servant but their services were regularized after about six months from regularization of civil servant and civil servant was shown junior to co‑civil servants ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Seniority of civil servants would be determined with reference to the dates of their continuous appointment (regularization in the grade)‑‑‑Where the date of continuous appointment (regularization) in case of two or more civil servants, was the same, the older would rank senior to the younger‑‑‑As the civil servant was confirmed prior to the co‑civil servant, his name was wrongly mentioned as junior to the co‑civil servants‑‑‑Civil servant was declared senior to co‑civil servants and inter se seniority of co‑civil servants was to be determined by treating the older senior to the yonger‑‑ Seniority list was directed to be corrected accordingly.
M.Y Bhatti for Appellant.
District Attorney for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 16th May, 2001.
JUDGMENT
Appeal under section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against order dated 8‑8‑1994 vide which representation of the appellant against seniority list dated 2‑5‑1991 was rejected.
Briefly stated the facts leading to appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk on ad hoc basis on 22‑2‑1988. His ad hoc period was extended from time to time. Vide Order No. DDF‑GRW‑EC‑89/1997, dated 25‑5‑1989, on the recommendations of Departmental Promotion/Selection Committee, his services were regularized.
Respondents Nos.3, to 6 were appointed as Junior Clerks on ad hoc for to the appellant but they were not regularized. Their ad hoc period was extended from time to time. Vide S&GAD Notification No.SOR.11‑2‑54/87, dated 17‑6‑1989, Governor of the Punjab was pleased to order regularization of all appointments made on ad hoc basis against vacancies in BS‑1 to BS‑15 in various departments of the Government of the Punjab subject to the following conditions:‑‑
1. All ad hoc appointments made so far in various Government Departments in BS‑1 to BS‑9 shall be regularized subject to the condition that the persons so appointed possess the required academic qualification prescribed for the posts in the relevant Rules.
2. All ad hoc appointments made so far in various Government Departments in BS‑10 to BS‑15 shall be regularized subject to the following conditions:‑‑
(a) The persons so appointed fulfil all conditions of appointment for the posts to which they were appointed on ad hoc basis; and
(b) the appropriate Selection Authorities consider them fit for appointment to the posts against which their ad hoc appointments were made.
In compliance of the above mentioned Notification, the services of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were regularized with immediate effect vide order dated 2‑7‑1989. In the seniority list notified on 2‑5‑1991, the appellant was shown junior to the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and the said seniority was based treating the ad hoc appointment as date of entry into Government service. On. 19‑10‑1992, the appellant made representation to the Director Food, Gujranwala that in the seniority list, he may be declared senior to the respondents Nos.3 to 6 because his services were regularized on 25‑1‑1989 whereas the respondents Nos.3 to 6 were regularized on 2‑7‑1989. Vide impugned order dated 8‑8‑1994, his representation was rejected on the ground that all officials were regularized with effect from 30‑6‑1989. Their seniority was determined by Deputy Director Food from the date of their joining into Government service. The appellant joined the service after respondents Nos.3 to 6. He was made junior to the respondents Nos.3 to 6. Hence this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney and have perused the record and written objections submitted by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that after taking the type test and interview of the appellant and respondents Nos. 3 to 6, the Departmental Promotion/Selection Committee in its meeting held on 25‑1‑1989 recommended for regularization of the appellant. Respondents Nos.3 to 6 failed to qualify type test and committee did not recommend their regularization. Subsequently, vide order dated 25‑1‑1989 in the light of the recommendations of Departmental Promotion/Section Committee, the services of the appellant were regularized. According to the general policy, the services of the appellant were regularized vide order dated 2‑7‑1989. The name the appellant was also included in the list of Junior Clerks regularized on 2‑7‑1989 in spite of the fact that his services were already regularized vide order dated 25‑1‑1989. He further argued that in the light of section 7 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 read with rule 8 of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, seniority shall be determined from the date of continuous appointment/regularization in the grade.
Under rule 22 of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 ad hoc appointment shall not confer any right on the persons so appointed in the manner of regular appointment to the same post nor the service shall count towards the seniority in the grade.
Perusal of the record reveals that the services of the appellant were regularized vide Order No.DDF‑GRW‑EC‑89/1994, dated 25‑1‑1989 while services of the respondents Nos.3 to 6 were regularized vide Order No.DDF GRW‑EC/89/2538, dated 2‑7‑1989.
Under section 7 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 read with rule 8 of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, seniority of civil servants shall be determined with reference to the dates of their continuous appointment (Regularization in the grade). In case, the date of continuous appointment (regularization) in case of two or more persons, is the same, the older shall rank senior to the younger. As the appellant was already confirmed vide order dated 2‑1‑1989, his name was wrongly mentioned in the order dated 2‑7‑1989.
The appeal is thus accepted. The appellant is declared senior to respondents Nos.3 to 6 and inter se seniority of respondents 3 to 6 should be determined by treating the older senior to the younger. The seniority list published on 2‑5‑1999 is to be corrected accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs.
H.B.T ./54/PS(Trib) Appeal accepted.