Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHURSHID AHMAD VS Respondent: SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI
1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C.S.) 1027
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Karim, JJ
KHURSHID AHMAD
versus
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and 14 others
.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.546 of 1995, decided on 10th March, 1996.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18-6-1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No.91(R) of 1995).
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---
----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)---Promotion---Civil servant was offered promotion to next grade but he preferred to continue in his previous grade---Subsequently, however, civil servant was promoted on his own request---Civil servant's grievance that his juniors were promoted on basis of a letter and were later on further promoted and that he too should be promoted from back date, was repelled by Service Tribunal---Validity---Civil servant maintained that he could not be deprived of his right of promotion simply because he had at one stage requested for his promotion to be deferred---Civil servant, in fact, had not applied for promotion till 1979 and when he did, he was promoted---Promotion could not be thrust upon civil servant---Civil servant had .been offered promotion in 1974, but he had refused to avail the same---Civil servant having not availed of his right of promotion in 1974, no question of giving him retrospective promotion would arise---Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances.
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th March, 1996.
JUDGMENT
FAZAL KARIM, J.---The petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. in Grade-5 on 9-5-1963. On 16-7-1965 he was appointed as Key Punch Operator; he was in Grade-6 when on 15-3-1974 he was offered promotion in Grade-7. However, he preferred to continue as Key Punch Operator in Grade-6 and on his request his promotion was deferred. Then, on his own request he was promoted on 23-10-1979 as U.D.C.
2. The grievance made by him before the Tribunal was that he had done F.A. in 1967; that by virtue of a letter of the year 1970, his juniors were promoted as U.D.C. and were later promoted as Assistant and that he should like his juniors, also be granted promotion as U.D.C. and then as Assistant from the back date. Before the Tribunal it was conceded that he had not applied for his promotion till 1979 and that as soon as he did so apply. he was granted promotion. It was said that he had not applied for promotion because he was unaw4re of the promotion policy. The Tribunal repelled that explanation; it appeared to the Tribunal that "he was not willing to serve outside his cadre of Key Punch Operator perhaps due to some other benefits".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that the petitioner could not be deprived of his right of promotion because he had, at one stage, requested for his promotion to be deferred. The real point is that he had not applied for promotion till 1979 and when he did he was given promotion. Obviously promotion could not be thrust upon him. If the instructions contained in the letter of the year 1970 availed him, then he was entitled to promotion in 1974, when promotion was actually offered to him. It was he who did not avail of his right to promotion. No question of giving him retrospective promotion, therefore, arises.
4. The petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
A.A./K-17/S Leave refused.