Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: M. MASOOD AHMAD QAZI VS Respondent: LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,Ch. Hamid-ud-Din
1993 P L C (C
1993 P L C (C.S.) 364
[Lahore High Court]
Before Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J
M. MASOOD AHMAD QAZI
versus
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others
W.P. No. 5874 of 1989, heard on 3rd October, 1992.
Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Employee who earlier was appointed in Grade‑17, was later on appointed in Grade‑18 against a post of temporary nature, but after abolition of Project in which he was appointed as Officer of same Grade‑18‑‑‑Petitioner, who also was appointed in same Grade‑18 had challenged seniority of respondent on ground that respondent was appointed in Grade‑18 on stopgap arrangement‑‑‑Petitioner was appointed long after appointment of respondent and respondent from the very appointment was treated by Authority as regular employee‑‑‑Petitioner who otherwise had not challenged seniority list, could not at later stage urge that respondent was posted on stopgap arrangement‑‑ Both employees had been promoted to Grade‑19 against selection posts‑‑ Petitioner having been promoted to Grade‑18 petition filed challenging seniority of respondent employee, had been rendered inconsequential for all practical purposes.
M.M. Saeed Beg for Petitioner.
Malik A.R. Arshad for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din for Respondent No. 4.
Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1992.
JUDGMENT
The grievance disclosed in this petition is that Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan respondent No. 4 was never regularly appointed as an employee of the LDA and that his posting vide order dated 19th October, 1977 against the post of Deputy Town Planner cannot be taken as a regular appointment and as such the respondent could not be treated senior to the petitioner in Grade‑18. learned counsel added that the representation made against the final seniority list was, therefore, illegally and arbitrarily rejected.
2. The necessary facts for understanding the above‑noted grievance are that Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Evaluation Officer in Grade‑17 on 15‑4‑1976. The post of Economic Planner in BPS‑18 was advertised on 18‑7‑1977 and the said respondent applied for the said post and was appointed as Economic Planner vide order dated 27‑9‑1977 in Grade‑18. The post of the Economic Planner was a post of temporary project called as Lahore Urban Development and Traffic Study Project. Mr. Aftab Ahmed Khan respondent was again posted as Deputy Town Planner vide order dated 27‑9‑1977. The aforesaid project was ultimately abolished on 3‑6‑1984 and most of the employees of the said project were absorbed in the LDA with effect from 30‑6‑1984. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director in Grade‑18 in LDA on 13th July, 1981. A tentative seniority list of Grade‑18 officers was circulated on 9‑7‑1986. In this list the petitioner was shown at S. No. 1 while Mr. Aftab Ahmed Khan respondent was not shown in the list at all. The reason for omitting the name of the said respondent statedly was that in the departmental proceedings vide order dated 12‑6‑1983, he was reduced in rank to NPS‑17 and obviously he would not be shown in the seniority list of NPS‑18 Officers. It was added that the order of reduction of rank dated 12‑6 1983 was challenged by filing Constitutional Petition No. 979/84 in this Court and the said petition was accepted and the order of reduction in rank was declared to have been passed without lawful authority. After decision of this Court in the aforesaid petition the revised tentative seniority list was issued on 24‑2‑1987 and objections against the said list were invited uptil 31st May, 1987. The petitioner admittedly did not file any objection within time. He, however, submitted a representation on 9‑9‑1987 which was rejected by the competent Authority on merits as well as being barred by time. This led to the filing of the present petition.
3. Learned counsel in support of the petition argued that the order dated 19‑10‑1977 posting the respondent as Deputy Town Planner cannot be treated as an order appointing the said respondent to the regular cadre of the Deputy Town Planner and as a regular employee of the L.DA. It is not disputed that a formal appointment letter was not issued while so posting the respondent as Deputy Town Planner. The conduct of the L.DA. shows that the respondent was posted in Grade‑18 as a Deputy Town Planner on 19‑10‑1977 and on account of the said appointment he was treated ' as regular employee of the L.DA. Had he not been treated as regular employee of L.DA. a direction to absorb him against a post in L.DA. would have issued on the winding up of the Lahore Urban Development and Traffic Study Project as was done in the case of other employees of the said Project. Moreover, had the petitioner been not' treated as regular employee of the L.DA., the writ petition earlier filed by the respondent would have been defended on that ground. Learned counsel submitted that the said judgment passed by the High Court is not relevant as the petitioner was not a party to the said petition. This may be so but the L.D.A. was party to the said petition and it is the conduct of the employer which is relevant for the purpose of seeing whether posting of the petitioner was taken by employer as regular appointment amounting to induction in service of L.D.A. or not.
4.The crux of the matter is that since 19‑10‑1977 till date the respondent was treated by the L.DA. as regular employee of L.D.A. and it is too late in the day now to urge that he was posted as Deputy Town Planner on stopgap arrangement as is being termed now by the petitioner in his writ petition. The petitioner joined the L .DA. on 31st July, 1981 and as such the respondent is senior to him even in Grade‑18. It may also be mentioned that petitioner as well as the respondent both have been promoted to Grade‑19 against the selection posts. No doubt that petitioner has been promoted in officiating capacity while promotion of the respondent in officiating capacity has now been regularised. It is not denied that the officiating promotion of the petitioner is most likely to be regularised as well. This being the position this petition on account of promotion of the petitioner in Grade‑18 has been rendered inconsequential practically.
5.For the reasons stated arrive, there is no merit in this petition and the carne is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./M‑673/L Petition dismissed.