ABDUL SATTAR Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
This matter concerns three petitions filed by Overseers seeking pro forma promotion to the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer, claiming parity with juniors who were promoted earlier. The petitioners relied on specific departmental orders regarding other employees to assert their rights to seniority and retrospective promotion. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the promotion orders cited by the petitioners, noting that the order concerning Khalil Ahmad explicitly stated it conferred no right of seniority or precedence over others and was subject to reversion if a senior's claim was established. Regarding the petitioner Abdul Rashid, the Court found that the promotion of others by the Government of Baluchistan occurred when the petitioner was not in competition, and the relevant government entity was not impleaded. The Court held that the cited orders did not create a vested right to pro forma promotion. Concluding that no substantial question of law of public importance existed under the constitutional framework, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the administrative adjustments did not entitle the petitioners to the relief sought.
- Does an administrative order granting retrospective pay adjustments to an employee, while explicitly preserving the seniority rights of others, confer a right to pro forma promotion on those others?
- Can a petitioner claim pro forma promotion based on the promotion of individuals by a provincial government that was not impleaded as a party?
- Does a claim for pro forma promotion based on departmental adjustments constitute a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.- - By three separate petitions, the three petitioners, who were recruited as Overseers, seek pro forma promotion from the date their juniors were formally promoted as Sub-Divisional Officers.
2. The cadre to which the parties belong is regional. The two Abdul Sattars claim their entitlement to promotion on the basis of an order passed on 28-11-1973 in favour of Khalil Ahmad, respondent No. 3. In order to meet an audit objection, the Governor of the Punjab regularly promoted Khalil Ahmad as officiating Overseer retrospectively w.e.f. 18-3-1968. The same order contained a reservation that he will be treated as officiating SDO of the Bahawalpur Region of the Irrigation & Power Department and his pay as such will be fixed with reference to the pay he was drawing under Small Dams Organization. It was further provided and this is important for the purposes of these petitions that "this order does not confer any right of seniority of precedence over others as Offg. SDOs. and Mr. Khalil Ahmad Offg. SDO. shall have to revert as Overseer in case the claim of any of his senior is established for promotion as Offg. SDO."
3. The order on the basis of which these two petitioners claim pro forma promotion is not such as may invest them with a right to claim it for their seniority rights over Khalil Ahmad have been preserved and it was in view of his deputation on ex-cadre post and functioning there that certain adjustments with regard to pay etc. were made. The arrangement was without prejudice to the seniority claimed by these two petitioners.
4. As regards Abdul Rashid petitioner, the grievance is against an order passed by the Government of Baluchistan after disintegration of the Province of West Pakistan promoting Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Saeed from a date in 1970. As the Government of Baluchistan was not impleaded and the promotion was ordered at a time when the other petitioner Abdul Rashid was not in competition with them nor was he ignored for his case could not be dealt with by the Baluchistan Government that order will not provide him the basis for seeking pro forma promotion.
5. In the circumstances, we find that no question of law of public importance as is envisaged in Article 212 (3) of the Constitution arises in the case for further examination and leave to appeal is refused.
S.Q./A-106/S Leave refused.