Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973

Citation Name : 2019 SCMR 980 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN, FBR
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ARSHAD HILALI
seniority ---Civil servant transferred to another department after making a request for mutual transfer with another civil servant---Whether seniority of such civil servant was to be reckoned from date of his absorption in the new department or date of his initial appointment in his original department---Respondent was appointed as Preventive Officer (BS-11) in Customs House, whereas civil servant 'S' was working as Inspector (BS-11) in Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise---Both being in the Customs department holding posts in equal grade made a request for mutual transfer, which was accepted and the respondent was permanently absorbed as Inspector Customs, while "S" was absorbed as Preventive Officer---Held, that paragraph 6 of instructions contained in Serial No. 30, Chapter III, Part II of Estacode (1989 edition) clearly provided that where a person was transferred to another office in a situation where it was open to him to accept or refuse such transfer, his seniority was to be reckoned from the date of his transfer to the new office---Only exception to such rule was contained in paragraph 6(i)(b), which stated that where a person was compulsorily transferred to another office then he was allowed to count his service in the previous office towards his seniority in his new office---In the present case, the respondent sought his transfer to his new office on his own volition on the basis of mutual consent with another officer of the same grade; he was not compulsorily transferred at the instance of the department, hence the recognized practice contained in paragraph 6(i)(a) of Serial No. 30, Chapter III, Part II of Estacode (1989 edition) clearly disentitled him to count his previous service towards seniority in the new office---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal was set aside.

Citation Name : 2019 SCMR 830 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : ABU BAKAR FAROOQ
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ALI RAJPAR
Ss. 8 & 11(3)---Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, Rr. 10 & 19---Federal Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978, R. 3---Ad hoc appointment---Regularization in service---seniority , reckoning of---Scope---Whether ad hoc employee, who was switched to contract employee and then finally regularized in service could be granted seniority with effect from the date of his ad hoc appointment---Since the appointment on ad hoc basis was a "stop gap" arrangement, therefore, as provided in S. 11(3) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, it stood terminated either on the expiry of the period for which such ad hoc appointment was made or on the appointment of a person recommended by the Commission---Such ad hoc appointee did not acquire a right to claim his seniority in accordance with S. 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 vis-a-vis the civil servants who were appointed on regular basis on the recommendation of the Commission after going through the selection process---Ad hoc employee neither had right to hold the post beyond the period for which he was appointed nor the government had a right to continue with such ad hoc appointee for a long period of time---Extended appointment on ad hoc basis only arose where the government violated the provision of R. 3 of the Federal Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978 and without placing a requisition before Commission for regular appointment filled the post on ad hoc basis and then kept on extending the period of such ad hoc appointment---In such a situation the ad hoc appointee clung on to his post knowing fully well that his ad hoc appointment was not in accordance with the prescribed method of appointment and was only a "stop gap" arrangement, till recruitment in accordance with the prescribed method of appointment was made---Such conduct of the government had always been deprecated by the Courts, however, such shortcoming/non-adherence to the legal requirements by the competent authority could earn no benefit for the ad hoc appointee for the simple reason that bestowing the benefits of regular appointment upon an ad hoc employee would not only amount to regularizing unlawful appointment and providing premium to the beneficiary of such wrong but would also amount to opening another door of entry into service of Pakistan by frustrating the only prescribed mode of appointment through the Commission---Appeals were allowed accordingly.