Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

1987 P L C (C

1987 P L C (C.S.) 704

[Punjab Service Tribunal]

Present: Ihsanul Haque Chaudhry, Chairman

Dr. MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN

versus

SECRETARY, LIVESTOCK and DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, Lahore.

Case No. 177 of 1986, decided on 4th June, 1987.

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑

‑‑S.4‑‑Efficiency bar‑‑Adverse entry in A. C. R.‑‑Crossing of efficiency bar‑‑Requirement‑‑Cadre of pay scale of civil servant revised and upgraded‑‑Effect on efficiency bar‑‑Two consecutive satisfactory reports essential for crossing efficiency bar where civil servant had suffered adverse entry in A.C.R.‑‑Before appellant could earn two satisfactory reports consecutively, N. P. S. applicable to such civil servant was revised and upgraded‑‑There being no efficiency bar in the revised scale, question of appellant crossing efficiency bar, held, was meaningless‑ Appeal dismissed in circumstances.

Shahid Ali Mian for Appellant.

Manzoor Hussain Bhatti, District Attorney for Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The appellant was appointed as Veterinary Officer in the year 1978 and he was to cross efficiency bar with effect from 1‑12‑1982. The officer in order to cross the efficiency bar has to fulfil the following requirements:‑

"If one or more adverse reports are communicated to the civil servant concerned within five years preceding accrual of the Bar and these are not expugned, permission to cross Efficiency Bar should be withheld till he has earned two consecutive satisfactory reports;

It is admitted position that appellant suffered an adverse entry in the A . C . R . for the year 1980, which was communicated to him but he preferred not to challenge the same. This being the position he could not cross efficiency bar when due.

2. The appellant having failed to qualify to cross the efficiency bar at the

prescribed time, then he has to wait and earn two consecutive satisfactory reports in order to cross the efficiency bar subsequently. In the present case before the appellant could earn two satisfactory reports consecutively, N.P.S.‑17 was revised and upgraded i.e. 1,600‑120‑3,040. This was done with effect from 1‑7‑1983 and the salary of the appellant fixed accordingly in the revised scale. There is no efficiency bar in the revised scale. Hence the question of, appellant crossing the efficiency bar after 1‑7‑1984 was meaningless.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant earned two satisfactory reports for the years 1983 and 1984, therefore, entitled to cross efficiency bar with effect from 1‑12‑1982. The argument is misconceived as the relevant time the appellant was in revised and upgraded scale and there was no efficiency bar, hence there is no question of crossing the efficiency bar. Even if the old scale had continued, still the appellant could not be given the benefit of efficiency bar with effect from 1‑12‑1982, when he was originally due for crossing the same.

4. The appellant is flogging dead horse and the appeal is utterly misconceived and without merit.

5. The upshot of the discussion is that the appeal is dismissed as misconceived and incompetent. There is no basis for the claim.

A.A./123/Sr.P

Appeal dismissed.

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