Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 SCMR 558
Court / Jurisdiction: SUPREME-COURT
Parties: SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, PESHAWAR vs INAYAT ULLAHHonorable Justice Musarrat HilaliBashar Naveed,Nemo
This judicial decision was delivered by the SUPREME-COURT. The matter involves proceedings between SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, PESHAWAR and INAYAT ULLAHHonorable Justice Musarrat HilaliBashar Naveed,Nemo, officially reported as 2026 SCMR 558. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
2026 S C M R 558 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Musarrat Hilali and Shakeel Ahmad, JJ SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, PESHAWAR and others ---Petitioners Versus INAYAT ULLAH and another ---Respondents Civil Petition Appeals Nos. 700-P and 701-P of 2024, decided on 30th July, 2025. (Against the judgment / order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar in Appeals Nos. 1183 and 1184 of 2023). (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 212(3)---Civil service---Promotion---Entitlement---Departmental Promotion Committee---Meeting deferred by department---Revision of promotion rules during deferred period of meeting---Effect upon pending promotion cases---Department relying upon revised promotion rules---Legality---Entitlement determined under earlier rules---Briefly, the respondents were appointed as sub engineers in the year 1986 and were later upgraded to BPS-16 from BPS-12---Upon becoming eligible under the then-applicable service rules, their working papers for promotion to the post of assistant engineer in BPS-17 were prepared, but the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was deferred by the department on the ground that new promotion rules were under consideration, subsequently, revised rules were notified, under which the respondents were declared ineligible for promotion, while their departmental appeals remained undecided, leading them to file service appeals before the service tribunal, which were allowed, holding them entitled to promotion in accordance with the rules applicable at the time they became eligible---The said judgment of service tribunal was challenged by the department before the Supreme Court through present civil petitions for leave to appeal---Held: Respondents had satisfied the eligibility criteria for promotion pursuant to the rules enforced at the time of their initial appointment---Consequently, their cases were fully ripe for consideration by DPC---The subsequent delay in convening meeting of the DPC was an administrative failure attributable solely to the department and could not be imputed to the respondents---The subsequently amended rules were to operate prospectively unless a contrary intimation was manifestly evident from the statute---Question of whether the amended rules were to be applied retrospectively or prospectively was beyond the scope of DPC s mandate---The DPC also did not have the authority to delay the meeting while waiting for amendment of the rules---Leave was declined and present petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Civil service--- ----Departmental promotion committee---Deferment of meeting by department---Subsequent revision of promotion rules during deferred period of meeting---Effect on pending promotion cases---Department s reliance on revised rules---Legality and permissibility---Whoever fulfills the prescribed eligibility conditions acquires a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion in accordance with the prevailing rules. (c) Civil service--- ----Seniority or eligibility for promotion, matter of---Department giving prospective effect to the subsequently introduced amendment in promotion rules---Effect upon employees appointed prior to amendment---Legality---Correct interpretation of statute in such circumstances---Where an amendment adversely effects the accrued substantive rights, such as those pertaining to seniority or eligibility for promotion, it cannot be applied retrospectively to the employees appointed prior to amendment. (d) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Retrospective application of a statue---Scope---Circumstances---Retrospective application is permissible only if the parent statute, which confers the rule making power, contains an express provision to the effect---In absence of such explicit legislative sanction, applying amended provision of law retrospectively is legally untenable. Bashar Naveed, Additional Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th July, 2025. ORDER MUSARRAT HILALI, J.---These civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against consolidated judgment dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar ("the Tribunal") in Service Appeals Nos.1183/2023 and 1184/2023, whereby the service appeals of the present respondents Sub Engineers in the Communication and Works Department were allowed, and they were held entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (BPS-17) in accordance with the rules applicable at the time they became eligible. 2. The brief facts are that the respondents were appointed as Sub-Engineers (BPS-12) in the year 1986 and were subsequently upgraded to BPS-16. At the relevant time, their working papers for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (BPS-17) were prepared. However, meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee ("the DPC") was deferred by the department on the premise that new promotion rules were under consideration. Eventually, revised rules were notified on 20.01.2023, under which the respondents were no longer eligible for promotion. Their departmental appeals remained undecided, prompting filing of service appeals before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal, upon hearing both sides and examining the record, accepted the appeals which have been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. 4. The learned AAG for the petitioners argued that no vested right to promotion exists unless a formal promotion order is issued, and that the Tribunal erred in interfering with administrative discretion. It was further contended that the revised rules were applicable at the time of decision and thus rightly followed by the department. 5. The record of this case reveals that respondents had satisfied the eligibility criteria for promotion pursuant to the rules enforced at the time of their initial appointment. Consequently, their cases were fully ripe for consideration by the DPC. The subsequent delay in convening meeting of the DPC was an administrative failure attributable solely to the department and cannot be imputed to the respondents. The legal position in this regard is well settled. An employee, who fulfills the prescribed eligibility conditions acquires a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion in accordance with the prevailing rules. The fundamental principle governing the application of amended rules is that such amendment operates prospectively unless a contrary intimation is manifestly evident from the statute. Specifically, where an amendment adversely effects the accrued substantive rights, such as those pertaining to seniority or eligibility for promotion, it cannot be applied retrospectively to the employees appointed prior to the amendment. Retrospective application is permissible only if the parent statute, which confers the rule making power, contain an express provision to that effect. In absence of such explicit legislative sanction applying amended rules retrospectively to the detriment of civil servants, who had already accrued a right to be considered for promotion, is legally untenable. It constitutes a violation of the principle of legitimate expectation and renders departmental action arbitrary. Furthermore, the question of whether the amended rules are to be applied prospectively or retrospectively is beyond the scope of DPC's mandate. The Departmental Promotion Committee also does not have the authority to delay the meeting while waiting for amendment of the rules. 6. For these reasons, we affirm the findings of the Tribunal dated 25.07.2024. UN/S-54/SC Petition dismissed.