Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS Respondent: SHAH MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY
1997 P L C (C
1997 P L C (C. S.) 412
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
versus
SHAH MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY
Civil Petition No. 1443/L of 1993, decided on 14th March, 1995.
(On appeal from the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 8‑9‑1993 passed in Appeal No. 439/91).
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIM of 1974)‑--
‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servant being on deputation with autonomous body, was not considered for promotion while his juniors were promoted‑‑‑Civil servant's departmental representation remained unsuccessful‑‑Service Tribunal accepted civil servant's plea that civil servant could be promoted while still on deputation and then asked to come back to avail his promotion‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Service Tribunal's finding was in terms of Policy Letter of Government dated 20‑I1‑1982 that if officer concerned was on deputation with an autonomous body, his case should be considered on his turn and if cleared he should be informed of that decision and given an option to revert back to his parent department within three months of the date on which his promotion falls due or decision was communicated to him, whichever was later‑‑‑Where officer concerned reverts back to parent department within specified period, he should be promoted and allowed to retain his original seniority‑‑‑Civil servant was neither given any timely intimation and asked to return to his parent department nor his case was considered for promotion‑‑‑Reasoning given by Service Tribunal did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑‑Question of granting promotion to civil servant from the back date when his juniors were promoted was now only notional on account of civil servant having ceased to be employee of the Government‑‑‑Service Tribunal had rightly found that non‑joinder of juniors of civil servant in appeal was inconsequential for promotion of civil servant would not affect any of his junior‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Abdul Majeed Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 14th March, 1995.
JUDGMENT
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J‑‑‑The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 8‑9‑1993 whereby service appeal filed by the respondent was accepted and the petitioners have been directed to consider the case of promotion of the respondent from the date his juniors were promoted.
The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent while serving as an Instructor (Mechanical) at the Government Polytechnic Institute, Sargodha was sent on deputation to Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi on 30‑8‑1981. The period of deputation of the respondent was extended from time to time and the last extension granted to the respondent expired on 6‑10‑1989. The respondent however instead of reverting back to his department proceeded on L.P.R. with effect from 7‑10‑1989 when the period of deputation came to an end and he was thereafter immediately absorbed in the service of Pakistan Steel Mills. The grievance of the respondent before the Service Tribunal was that while on deputation his juniors were promoted on 1‑6‑1986 and 31‑5‑1989 without considering his eligibility for promotion. He was also ignored on 29‑12‑1987 when his juniors were promoted. The respondent was first superseded on 1‑6‑1982 on account of adverse remarks in his Confidential Report. However, these adverse remarks were subsequently expunged by the departmental authority vide order dated 27‑7‑1986 and 8‑1‑1987. It was accordingly contended before the Service Tribunal that after expunction of these remarks the authority should have considered the case of respondent for promotion to the next higher post. The respondent made a departmental representation when he was superseded on 6‑3‑1986. While the departmental representation of the respondent was pending the case of respondent came up for consideration before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 31‑5‑1989 but his case was deferred as some of his A.C.Rs were missing. The respondent accordingly claimed that after his A.C.Rs. were made available he should have been considered for promotion and given retrospective effect seniority from the date his juniors were promoted. The learned Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent observing as follows:
S&GAD Policy Letter No. SO(S) 18‑30, dated 20‑11‑1982 provides that if the officer concerned is on deputation with an autonomous or local body or on deputation with and another Government Department or another Government viz. Federal Government or Provincial Government the Policy of the Punjab Government was that the case of the officer should be considered on his turn and if cleared he should be informed of the decision and given an option to revert back to his parent department within three months of the date on which his promotion falls due or the decision is communicated to him whichever is later. In case the officer concerned reverts back to the parent department within this period he should be promoted and allowed to retain his original seniority.
6. From the above facts of the case it is evident that neither the appellant was given any timely intimation and asked to return to his parent department nor was his case reconsidered after expunction of the adverse remarks and the missing A.C.Rs. having become available. The appellant had not been absorbed in the Pakistan Steel Mills until after he had proceeded on L.P.R. on 7‑10‑1989. There was thus plenty of time available to the respondents to reconsider his case when the entire service record of the appellant had become available and the adverse remarks had also been expunged. It is quite likely that had the officer been asked to come back and had he been promoted from the due dates the appellant might in fact have decided to be repatriated to his parent department in order to earn his promotion. If he could be granted move‑over in absentia he could as well be promoted while still on deputation and then asked to come back.
The reasoning given by the learned Tribunal for accepting the appeal of the respondent does not suffer from any infirmity. Apart from it, the question of granting promotion to the respondent from the back date when his juniors were promoted is now only notional as the respondent has ceased to be the employee of Provincial Government with effect from 7‑10‑1989 when he was absorbed in the service of Pakistan Steel Mills. The Service Tribunal, therefore, rightly observed that the non‑joinder of juniors of the respondent in the appeal, was inconsequential in the circumstances of the case, as the promotion of respondent would not affect any of his juniors. We do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave in the above circumstances. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.
A.A./P‑433/S Leave refused.