Law:

Section:

Seniority Rules, 1993Rr. 4 & 7SeniorityDetermination ofCivil servant working as Stenographer in the office, was a permanent employee and was at Serial No. 3 of Seniority ListOpposing civil servant who was working in different department was transferred on deputation in office of civil servant for three years and was posted as StenographerOpposing civil servant within three years of his deputation not only was selected for absorption in office of civil servant where he was transferred on deputation, but his name was also put at Serial No. 3 of Seniority List at which name of civil servant already existed, giving opposing civil servant benefit of his previous service in other department from where he was transferredAccording to R. 4 of Seniority Rules, 1993 seniority in service, cadre or post to which any civil servant was appointed, would take effect from date of regular appointment to service, cadre or postOpposing civil servant thus had to reckon his seniority from date he was regularly appointed/absorbed Civil servant who was regularly appointed as Stenographer prior to absorption of opposing civil servant, his seniority was wrongly disturbed by putting name of opposing civil servant at Serial No. 3 of Seniority List, where name of civil servant already existed. Sh. Riazul Haq for Appellant. M. Javid Aziz Sandhu, Standing .Counsel with Muhammad Yaqub, A.O. for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 in person. Date of hearing: 23rd July, 1996. JUDGMENT ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER)The relevant facts for the disposal of the present service appeal are that, appellant is a permanent employee of the Office of the AuditorGeneral. He has been working over there as stenographer since 11111985 and is at Sl. No. 3 of the Seniority List. On the other hand the respondent No. 2 is an employee of the Office of D.G. Railways Audit, Lahore. He came to the Office of the AuditorGeneral, Islamabad on deputation and posted as Stenographer (B15) for a period of 3 years with effect from 1891993 vide Office Orders dated 1391993 and 13111993 respectively. 2. Allegedly instead of waiting for expiry of the period of deputation of the respondent No. 2 and sending him back to his parent…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492