Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUNIR AHMAD VS Respondent: FEDERAL GOVERNMENTHonorable Justice MUHAMMAD ILYAS LODHIHaji Muhammad Ramzan,Muhammad Afzal, U.D.C. as D.R & Ex parte.
1995 P L C (C
1995 P L C (C.S.) 322
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Muhammad Ilyas Lodhi and Noor Muhammad Magsi, Members
MUNIR AHMAD
Versus
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 9 others
Appeal No. 182(L) of 1994, decided 6n 18th October, 1994.
Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑‑Civil servant who was Supervisor and had thirty years of service at his credit, was not promoted to post of `Assistant Manager' whereas persons junior to him had been promoted‑‑‑Civil servant was ignored by Department concerned taking plea of unsatisfactory service record of civil servant‑‑‑Plea of Department was contrary to record as in one para of the report it had been mentioned that civil servant had good, very good grading with recommendation fit for promotion‑‑‑Record of department showed that service record of civil servant for relevant years was good, very good and average in over‑all grading‑‑‑Held, in view of such comments furnished by Department, a fair and just treatment had not been given to civil servant‑‑‑Case was remanded for consideration of promotion of civil servant.
Haji Muhammad Ramzan for Appellant.
Muhammad Afzal, U.D.C. as D.R. for Respondents.
Respondents Nos. 4 to 10: Ex parte.
Date of hearing: 23rd August, 1994.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant, Munir Ahmad, Supervisor, Military Farms Group, Okara, has come in appeal against the impugned order dated 25‑5‑1994 whereby he was not promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (B‑11). He made a departmental appeal against the impugned order on 27‑4‑1994 which was rejected by the respondents. He then came to the Tribunal with the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 7‑7‑1994 with the prayer that the "order dated 25‑5 1994 be set aside and the appellant be declared to be eligible for promotion and respondent No. 2 be ordered to promote the appellant to the rank of Assistant Manager with effect from 10‑6‑1993".
2. The case of the appellant in a nutshell is that he has thirty years service at his credit. He has all along good record of service. The persons junior to the appellant (respondents Nos. 4 to 10) have been promoted by the department while the appellant has been ignored by the DPC taking the plea of unsatisfactory record of service. The appellant has not earned any adverse report during the relevant period, therefore, he was eligible for promotion.
3. On the other hand the contention of the respondents is that the case of the appellant was placed before the DPC but due to unsatisfactory record of service he was not promoted. However, on the basis of good record of service of respondents Nos. 4 to 10, they were promoted by the department.
4. We have examined the comments submitted by the department. The plea of department is that the appellant was considered by the DPC but due to unsatisfactory record of service he was not considered fit for promotion to BPS‑11. We have also examined the record and observed that the explanation furnished by the department is contrary as under para. 2 they have shown that the appellant was `Censured' in the year, 1991 whereas under para 3, it has been mentioned that he got very good grading with recommendation fit for promotion. According to their own statement the record of service of the appellant for the years 1990 to 1993 is good, very good and average in the over‑all grading which contradicts their own version given in para 1 of the comments. We are of the view that though the appeal is hit by section 4(1)(b) but on the face of the facts of the case as brought out by the appellant and the comments furnished by the department, a fair justice has not been given to the appellant and we therefore remand the case to the department with the observation as per their own version the record for the years 1990 to 1993 is good, very good and average, the appellant should be considered again for promotion to BPS‑11 through DPC within two months.
H.B.T./1008/Sr.F Order accordingly.