Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

1994 P L C (C

1994 P L C (C.S) 1639

[Service Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Akhtar Hassan, Chairman and Abdul Hamid Khan, Member

Ch. HABIB HUSSAIN KHAN

Versus

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, SGA&I DEPARTMENT and another

Appeal No. 143 of 1992, decided on 18th March, 1993.

Civil service‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑ Pro forma promotion‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Request of civil servant for grant of pro forma promotion with effect from date on which his next junior was so promoted, was not accepted on ground that civil servant had earned advisory remarks in his A.C.Rs. from year 1980 to 1985 and that his record was found to be average‑‑‑No adverse remarks had been recorded against work or integrity of civil servant‑‑‑Some other civil servants whose cases were also considered for pro forma promotion alongwith civil servant were cleared for grant of pro forma promotion with observation that though some of their A.C.Rs. were average they had not been adversely reported upon in any of their A.C.Rs. And that their overall service record was satisfactory‑‑‑Those other civil servants were granted pro forma promotion, but case of civil servant was deferred, despite his case was on all fours with those of other civil servants who were granted pro forma promotion‑‑‑Those other civil servants later ‑on earned good reports which transformed their overall record from 'mostly average' to 'satisfactory' and such good remarks were given with retrospective effect, but in case of civil servant who had also earned overall service record as 'mostly good' same was not given retrospective effect‑‑‑Such action of Authority concerned, could only be termed as capricious, whimsical, arbitrary and definitely discriminatory and same could not be allowed to continue to operate against civil servant‑‑‑Order refusing request of civil servant for grant of pro forma promotion from date when his junior was granted such promotion, was set aside‑ with direction that his case should be placed before Authority for consideration on basis of same criteria which was made basis for allowing pro forma promotion to other civil servants.

Syed Aqa Asif Jaffery for Appellant.

Javed Ahmed Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents

Date of hearing: 3rd January, 1993.

JUDGMENT

ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant, a Member of the PCS (EB), has filed this appeal against the order dated 9‑3‑1992 of respondent No. 1/Additional Chief Secretary rejecting his representation for pro forma promotion as AC/ADC (BPS‑18) with effect from 21‑12‑1988.

2. The cases of 45 EACs (BS‑17), including the appellant, were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 10‑8‑1988. The Committee deferred the case of the appellant as 'his ACRs were found mostly average' and observed that ' he should earn at least one good/very good ACR'. His case was again put up before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration on 10‑8‑1989. The Committee reviewed his overall record of service which was found to be mostly good. He was given advisory remarks in his ACRs for the period 1‑1‑1980 to 2‑10‑1980, 13‑5‑1982 to 31‑12‑1982, 27‑8‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983 and 1‑1‑1985 to 31‑12‑1985. However, no adverse remarks have been recorded against his work or his integrity". Accordingly, the Committee recommended his case for promotion. In this meeting the Committee also approved the names of M/s. Wasim Ahmed Nasir Bhatti and Asghar Ali Cheema whose cases had similarly been deferred earlier. The three officers later applied for pro forma promotion. The cases of his two colleagues were considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 9‑4‑1991 which cleared them for pro forma promotion with the observation that though some of their ACRs were 'average', they had not been adversely reported upon in any of their ACRs and that their overall service record was satisfactory. They were accordingly given pro forma promotion with effect from 21‑12‑1988. The case of the appellant came up before the Committee for consideration on 30‑1‑1992/1‑2‑1992 which did not recommend his case for pro forma promotion. The decision was based on the following observations of the Committee:

"He had requested for grant of pro forma promotion as AC/ADC with effect from 21‑12‑1988, the date on which his next junior was so promoted. This officer was granted promotion as AC on 5‑11‑1989. The record of this officer before 21-12‑1988 was perused and it was found that ho, had earned the advisory remarks in his ACRs for the periods from 1‑1‑1980 to 2‑10‑1980, 13‑5‑1982 to 31‑12‑1.982, 27‑3‑1983 to 31‑12‑1983 and 1‑1‑1985 to 31‑12‑1985. His record was mostly found 'average.' and the subsequent good report after the meeting dated 10‑8‑1988 had no retrospective effect as such the grant of pro forma promotion was not recommended".

4. The respondent‑Department was unable to defend itself against the charge of discrimination levelled by the appellant. The case of the appellant was on all fours with those of his two colleagues. The DPC has made identical observations in all the three cases while deferring their consideration. All the three officers later earned good reports in 1988 which transformed the overall record of his two colleagues from 'mostly average' to satisfactory but in the case of the appellant it was considered to have 'no retrospective effect'. The advisory remarks earned by him in 1980, 1982, 1983 and 1985 had not stood in the way of his promotion at the time when the Committee considered his case on 10‑8‑1989 but the same remarks became a stumbling block for his pro forma promotion subsequently. His overall service record which was found to be 'mostly good' earlier suddenly became mostly 'average' even after the addition of two good/very good reports for‑ the year 1988 when the Committee reconsidered his case on 30‑1‑1992/1‑2‑1992. This action of the Committee can only be termed as capricious, whimsical, arbitrary and definitely discretionary and the same cannot be allowed to continue to operate against the appellant.

Resultantly, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the case of the appellant shall be placed before the DPC for reconsideration on the basis of the same criterion which was made the basis for allowing pro forma promotion to M/s. Asghar Ali Cheema and Wasim Ahmed Nasir Bhatti and thereafter he shall be assigned his due seniority in the seniority list. There are no orders as to costs.

H.B.T./465/Sr.P ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant