Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SADIQ VS Respondent: POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL PUNJAB, LAHORE and anotherHonorable Justice MOAZZAM HAYATSheikh Abdul Hameed,Kh. Tariq Masood
2007 P L C (C.S.) 511
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Moazzam Hayat and Jehan Zaib Burki, Members
MUHAMMAD SADIQ
Versus
POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL PUNJAB, LAHORE and another
Appeal No.379(L)(C.S.) of 2000, decided on 24th November, 2004.
Civil service---
----Move-over---Entitlement---Effect of adverse entries in ACR's---Civil servant was deprived of move-over from BPS-10 to BPS-11 w.e.f. 1-12-1996 due to adverse entries in his ACRs for the years 1995 and 1996---Said adverse entries for the years 1995/1996 were conveyed to civil servant vide letter dated 6-11-1997 which were received by him on 15-11-1997---Adverse remarks for the years 1995/1996, in circumstances were not conveyed to civil servant within prescribed time---Adverse entries having not been communicated to civil servant within .stipulated period, he could not be condemned and deprived of the benefits of move-over or promotion-Communication of adverse remarks after the date fixed for grant of move-over, would not adversely affect right of civil servant to move-over---Adverse remarks communicated to a civil servant to frustrate a right of promotion or move-over already acquired by him could not be used against him---Civil servant could not be condemned unheard with reference to adverse remarks not conveyed to him in time---Adverse remarks communicated to civil servant on 15-11-1997 would not affect his right to move-over which had matured on 1-11-1996.
1984 PLC (C.S.) 215 and 1994'PLC (C.S.) 12 ref.
Sheikh Abdul Hameed for Appellant.
Kh. Tariq Masood for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th November, 2004.
JUDGMENT
MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).--- Appellant Muhammad Sadiq is a Postmaster in the Postal Department Punjab. He is aggrieved by order, dated 27-4-2000 by which he was deprived of move-over due to his blemished record of service. His departmental appeal dated 18-1-2000 was turned down on 27-4-2000. It is prayed by him in his present appeal that order dated 27-4-2000 be set aside to the extent it relates to him and a direction be issued to the respondents to grant him move-over from BPS-10 to BPS-11 w.e.f. 1-12-1996 with all benefits.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant was not granted move-over due to adverse entries in his ACRs for the years 1995 and 1996.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. The contention of the appellant is that move-over could not be denied to him as the adverse entries for the years 1995-1996 were never communicated to him. We have seen the record, particularly Annexure "H". From this document it is established that the adverse entries for the years 1995-1996 were conveyed to the appellant vide letter, dated 6-11-1997 which was received by him on 15-11-1997. From the impugned order, dated 27-4-2000 it has transpired that move-over from BPS-10 to BPS-11 was due to the appellant w.e.f. 1-12-1996. The adverse entries for the year 1995-1996 were not conveyed to the appellant within time. These entries were conveyed to him vide letter dated 6-11-1997, received by him on 15-11-1997. We are of the view that if adverse entries are not communicated to a civil servant within the stipulated period he cannot be condemned and deprived of the benefit of move-over or promotion. The right to get move-over was acquired by the appellant w.e.f. 1-12-1996. The communication of adverse remarks after the said date did not adversely affect his right to move-over. We have before us 1984 PLC (C.S.) 215 and 1994 PLC (C.S.) 12. It was held by the Federal Service Tribunal in both these cases that adverse remarks communicated to a civil servant to frustrate a right of promotion or move-over already acquired by him could not be used against him. In 1984 PLC (C.S.) 215 it was further held that a civil servant could not be condemned unheard with reference to adverse remarks not conveyed to him in time. Relying on these authorities we hold that the adverse remarks communicated to the appellant on 15-11-1997 did not affect his right to move-over which had matured on 1-11-1996.
5. In the above circumstances we allow the appeal by setting aside the order, dated 27-4-2000 as far as it relates to the appellant. The respondents shall grant move-over to the appellant from BPS-10 to 11 w.e.f. 1-12-1996 with all consequential benefits.
6. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.
H.B.T./150/FST Appeal allowed.