Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HAZOOR-UL-ISLAM ABBASI VS Respondent: THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1465
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Aftab Ahmed and
Abdul Hameed Khan Khattak, Members
HAZOOR‑UL‑ISLAM ABBASI
Versus
THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Pak Sectt. Islamabad and 2 others
Appeal No.234(R) of 1998, decided on 4th January, 2001.
Habib Bank Limited Staff Service Regulations‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Reglns. 37 & 40‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LX of 1973), S.4‑‑‑Promotion, entitlement to‑‑‑Appeal, limitation for‑‑‑Bank though considered the appellant for promotion, but found him not fit for the same‑‑‑Bank accepted request of appellant for retirement under the Golden Handshake Scheme and the appellant was paid admissible dues‑‑‑Appellant filed appeal before Appellate Authority against order whereby he was retired under Golden Handshake Scheme‑‑‑Appellate Authority stated that non‑promotion of the appellant was not appealable ‑‑‑Appellant filed appeal before Service Tribunal against the order of Appellate Authority after more than four months from the order whereby the appellant was retired under Golden Handshake Scheme, which was time‑barred and was liable to be dismissed on that score alone‑‑‑Competent Authority after examining the record having not considered the appellant fit for promotion, such order could not be interfered with‑‑‑Appeal filed by the appellant which failed both on merits and limitation. was dismissed.
S. Kazim Hussain Kazmi for Appellant.
Shahid Anwar Bajwa for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 3rd January, 2001.
JUDGMENT
AFTAB AHMED, (MEMBER).‑‑‑The facts giving rise to the present appeal by Mr. Hazoor‑ul‑Islam Abbasi, a retired employee of Habib Bank Limited, are that on a disciplinary action for negligence/fraud the appellant was charge‑sheeted by the Zonal Chief, Abbottabad, on 27‑9‑1982. This charge‑sheet culminated in the issuance of order of dismissal from service dated 17‑6‑1984. Later on the recommendations of Review Board constituted by Government in 1988 the dismissal order was withdrawn and the appellant was reinstated into service. After reinstatement the appellant approached the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) for back benefits and consequential promotion. Single member of the N.I.R.C. accepted the petition and the order was also confirmed by Full Bench of the N.I.R.C vide
order dated 8‑5‑1996. On a writ filed by the bank against Full Bench order High Court vide order dated 16‑10‑1997 declared the N.I.R.C. order without lawful authority and of no legal affect. While accepting the writ the Court however, observed that the bank may consider the appellant for promotion in accordance with law. In compliance with the orders of the High Court, the appellant was considered for promotion by the bank but was found not fit for any promotion. Accordingly the request of the appellant for retirement under the Golden Handshake Scheme was accepted and the admissible dues were paid to them vide order dated 13‑12‑1997. The appellant filed appeal with the. President, Habib Bank Limited against the said order/letter of 13‑12‑1997 which was replied to vide letter dated 24‑3‑1998 that non‑promotion of an employee was not appealable. The appellant has now come up in appeal against the letter of H.B.L. dated 13‑12‑1997 read with 14‑3‑1998 with the prayer that the respondent‑bank be directed to consider the appellant for promotion as Senior Vice President w.e.f. the date of his eligibility with all consequential benefits.
2. Arguing the case of the appellant Mr. S. Kazim Hussain Kazmi, Advocate submitted that the respondent‑Bank had failed to consider the promotion of the appellant in accordance with the promotion policy of the bank. It was submitted that the appellant had good service record and had also been awarded commendation certificate of outstanding field performance during 1995.and as such deserved be promoted to higher grade upto the rank of Senior Vice‑President.
3. The bank was defended by Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate. Mr. Bajwa made the following points for consideration:‑‑
(i)???????? The appeal was barred by limitation;
(ii)??????? The appeal was not maintainable as no term and condition of appellant's service had been violated; and
(iii)?????? That the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to judge the suitability of a person to hold a particular post and that this was exclusively within the competency of the authority to determine the suitability of an employee to be promoted to a particular grade/post.
4. Elaborating his contentions Mr. Bajwa submitted that on 13‑12‑1997 the appellant was informed about his unfitness for promotion and there being no provision for any appeal against the decision of the authority to promote or not to promote, appeal to the Tribunal should have been tiled within 30 days of the receipt of the said order. The service appeal having been filed on 25‑4‑1998 was absolutely barred by limitation. On the second point learned counsel relying on the Supreme Court's decision in 1998 PLC (C.S.) 674 submitted that terms and conditions relatable to the prospects of promotion. do not form part of the service condition of the post from which promotion is to take place but they form part of the term and condition of higher post and that mere eligibility for promotion is not a term and condition of service for seeking promotion. Mr. Bajwa on the last leg of his arguments pleaded that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to sit over the assessment of the competent Authority to judge the suitability of a person to be promoted to a particular post/grade.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Regulation 40 of H.B.L. Staff Service Regulations provides right of appeal to an employee on whom any of the penalties given in Regulation 37. is imposed. There is no provision of any appe4l against denial of promotion. In such a situation the employee is required to approach a legal forum within the time prescribed by law. In this case the promotion was refused and intimation given to the appellant vide letter dated 13‑12‑1997. There being no provision for review against such order, the appellant was required to approach the Service Tribunal within 30 days of receipt of letter. The present appeal having been filed on 25‑4‑1998 is as such time‑barred and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. However, we have also examined merits of the case and would discuss them hereunder.
7. The order of N.1.R.C. directing payment of back benefit and consideration for promotion was set aside by the‑ High Court in writ jurisdiction. However, the bank still in compliance with the observations of D the Hon'ble High Court, considered the appellant for promotion. Minutes of consideration have been provided by the respondent‑Bank. The competent Authority after, examining the record did not consider the appeal fit for promotion and we do not find any reason to disagree with the competent
8. The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal fails both on merits and limitation and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
H.B.T/132/FST??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.