Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALI NAWAZ VS Respondent: PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
1999 P L C (C
1999 P L C (C.S.) 112
[Lahore High Court]
Before Sharif Hussain Bokhari, J
ALI NAWAZ
versus
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others
Writ Petition No. 151‑S of 1993/BWP, decided on 26th March, 1997.
Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servant working as Block Inspector Grade‑I (BS‑14) subsequently was asked by Authority to officiate as Block Inspector Grade‑11 in (BS‑16)‑‑‑civil servant who was continuously working against post of Block Inspector Grade‑11 (BS‑16) since 1977, claimed in his Constitutional petition to be permanently absorbed with back benefits in accordance with post of Block Inspector Grade‑11 (BS‑16)‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed by civil servant was disposed of in view of statement made on behalf of Authority that Departmental Promotion Committee would examine promotion of civil servant within a period of one month‑‑‑Departmental Promotion Committee without interviewing civil servant and without confronting him with any adverse report, if any, against him, declared civil servant unfit for jot as Block Inspector Grade II, without recording reasons to minutes of the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee‑‑‑Civil servant who remained working as Block Inspector Grade‑11 (BS‑16) since 1977 was entitled to be declared fit for that job‑‑‑Authority was directed to confirm civil servant as Block Inspector Grade‑II in BS‑16 with all the benefits of the said job.
Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner.
Muhammad Shafiq, Standing Counsel alongwith Mirza Yousaf Baig, Office Superintendent, Pakistan Railways for Respondent No. 1.
ORDER
The petitioner claims that he was working as Block Inspector Grade‑I (BS‑14) in the Pakistan Railways and subsequently in the year 1977, he was asked by the Department to officiate as Block Inspector Grad‑II in BS‑16. Since the year 1977, he is continuously working against the post as Block Inspector Grade‑11 (BS‑16). He claims to be permanently absorbed with back benefits in accordance with the post of Block Inspector Grade‑11 (BS‑16). Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the P.R. Gazette Extraordinary, dated 18th January, 1975. The relevant portion is as follows.‑‑
"The Government has decided that all staff, except work‑charged staff or those working in the temporary projects, with three years service should be confirmed and the posts against which they are working should be made permanent as far as possible. All others who cannot be so confirmed should be given all the benefits/privileges of confirmed staff."
2. Since he was not confirmed and given benefits, he filed Writ Petition No. 451 of 1992, which was disposed of on 14‑11‑1992 in view of the statement made by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Headquarters Office, Lahore that the Departmental Promotion Committee would dispose of the case of the petitioner within a period of one month.
3. Learned counsel for the Railways states that on 4‑3‑1993 the Departmental Promotion Committee held a meeting in which the petitioner was declared unfit for promotion.
4. It is admitted position that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not interview the petitioner nor he was confronted with any adverse report, if any, against him. No reasons have been recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 4‑3‑1993 declaring the petitioner unfit for the job as Block Inspector Grade‑II. The fact that the petitioner is working as Block Inspector Grade‑11 since the year 1977 even after the so‑called declaration of the Departmental Promotion Committee on 4‑3‑1993, is sufficient to declare the petitioner fit for the job. This writ petition is accordingly accepted and the respondents are directed to confirm the petitioner as Block Inspector Grade‑11 in BS‑16 in accordance with clause (1) of the P.R. Gazette Extraordinary, dated 18th January, 1975 and pay him all the benefits of this job. No order as to costs.
H.B.T./A‑259/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.