Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2005 P L C (C

2005 P L C (C.S.) 1436

[Punjab Service Tribunal]

Before Justice (Retd.) Riaz Kayani, Chairman

Sheikh GHULAM RASUL

Versus

CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and 5 others

Appeal No.2318 of 2004, decided on 30th April, 2005.

Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)---

----S. 8---Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4---Pro forma promotion---Entitlement---Appeal to Service Tribunal---Promotion in B.S.-18 was granted to the employee after being cleared by Departmental Promotion Committee---Appellant who was considered for said promotion, but was superseded in the year 1991, had challenged promotion of said employee in appeal after 11 years contending that the promotion was brought to his notice almost after 11 years---Appellant who slept over his rights, his assertion that observation of Departmental Promotion Committee in 1991 that he did not possess 2nd Division degree in Masters was void ab initio, could not be given any credence as he had failed to agitate same within period provided under the law and to say that he came to know about grievance after 11 years---It was opposed to common sense and comprehension that a civil servant superseded in 1991 would not know that junior to him was promoted in same selection/promotion process.

Dr. Ehsan ul Haq, counsel for Appellant.

Khadim Hussain Sindhu, District Attorney for Respondent.

Qaiser Raza, A.M. TEVTA, Departmental representative.

Aftab Ahmad for Respondent No.6.

Date of hearing: 29th April, 2005.

JUDGMENT

Sheikh Ghulam Rasul, Principal, Government Institute of Commerce, Yazman, District Bahawalpur has come in appeal bringing in challenge order dated 27-9-2004 passed by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority, hereinafter called TEVTA, who rejected the appeal of the appellant seeking pro forma promotion in BS-18 as Principal from 1991 and resultantly promotion is BS-19 from the date when respondent No.6 was promoted.

2. Facts gleaned out from the memorandum of appeal are that the appellant was recruited in the Government Commercial Training Institute as Junior Instructor in BS-11 on 21-1-1976 and was allowed BS-14 on 21-1-1978. Thereafter he was promoted as Instructor in BS-17 on 5-3-1980. Appellant was assigned seniority as Serial No.41 of the final seniority list (joint) of Instructors/Senior Instructors/Lecturers of Government Colleges of Commerce and Commercial Training Institutes in Punjab as it stood on 31-12-1986, whereas the respondent No.6, who was appointed in BS-17 on regular basis on 1-9-1985, was placed at serial No. 182. It is stated that the appellant was promoted as Principal in BS-19 vide order dated 25-1-1993 and posted at Government Commercial Training Institute, Kahuta. Appellant admitted that for the first time, it came to his knowledge on 8-8-2CO2 that respondent No.6 was promoted as Principal in BS-19, and that BS-18 was awarded to him earlier to that of the appellant, which caused him grievance, as he ranked senior to respondent No.6 having been confirmed in BS-17 on 5-3-1980, whereas respondent No.6 was appointed on regular basis in the same grade on 1-9-1985, which was further highlighted in the seniority list wherein he was at Serial No.41 and respondent No.6 at Serial No.182. A representation was made on 8-8-2002 addressed to the District Manager, TEVTA, but having not been decided, the appellant came to the Tribunal on 2-8-1996 of 2002 wherein the appellate authority was directed vide order dated 28-7-2003 to attend to the representation of the appellant which has now been decided after hearing the appellant and rejected through the order impugned.

3. It may be added that the appellant was promoted on regular basis as Principal in BS-19 and is imparting education at Government Institute of Commerce, Yazman, District Bahawalpur. Appellant through this appeal seeks the ante-dating of his promotion to BS-18 from 2-2-1998 when the post was available and also in BS-19 from the date of a gradation of the post under the four-tier structure. In the alternative, it was prayed that the promotion of the appellant in BS-18 and BS-19 be ante-dated to the dates when respondent No.6, his junior was promoted. The reply of the respondents was that the appellant was considered for promotion as Assistant Professor in BS-18 and the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 1991 rejected his case as he was not eligible being a 3rd Division in M.A, whereas the requirement under the rules was to possess at least Masters degree in 2nd Division in Commerce/Education/Business Administration. Finally, the appellant was promoted as Principal in BS-18 in 1993. It was stated that the appellant failed to challenge the observation of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 28/29-5-1991 declaring the appellant not to be eligible for promotion as he did not possess Masters degree in 2nd Division. On the other hand, respondent No.6 was promoted as Assistant Professor having been recommended by the D.P.C., in 1991 under the prevailing Departmental Service Rules, 1990 to BS-18. Appellant failed to challenge the promotion of respondent No.6 in 1991. Subsequently, appellant was promoted as Principal in BS-18 in the year 1993 and from that date, till the filing of the appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, appellant did not challenge the promotion with effect from back date, therefore, he was estopped to seek relief of promotion, which was not a right, given to him under the law, after 12 years.

4. I have heard the arguments at length and also perused the record.

5. Appellant's own admission in the memo. of appeal that for the first time, he challenged the promotion of respondent No.6 in BS-18 on 8-8-2002 drives a final nail in the coffin. Promotion in BS-18 having been granted to the respondent after being cleared by the Departmental Promotion Committee, on the other hand, appellant having been considered and superseded in the year 1991, the challenge to it being A brought on 8-8-2002 almost after 11 years in a matter, which was not the right of the appellant, cannot be given any serious thought now. Appellant slept over his rights and his assertion that the observation of Departmental Promotion Committee, in 1991, that he did not possess a 2nd Division degree in Masters was void ab-initio, cannot be given any credence, as he failed to agitate it within the period provided under thelaw and to say that he came to know about the grievance after 11 years cannot be believed as it lacks tangible evidence and is opposed to common sense and comprehension that a civil servant superseded in 1991, would not know that someone else, junior to him was promoted in the same selection/promotion process. His appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

H.B.T./50/PST 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