PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus ABDUL JALIL KHAN

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J. ‑‑The Government of the Punjab , seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 28‑6‑1982 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed.

2. The respondent joined the Police Department as an A.S.I. on 10‑7‑1949. He had rendered war service and sought the benefit of it. The Administrative Department, i.e. the Home Department in consultation with the Services and General Administration Department granted the War Service benefit and he was given the presumptive seniority from 1‑4‑1945. He was given pro forma promotion on the principle of next below rule and was also allowed pay according to the Scale of the promoted post. It was subsequently that the Provincial Government in the Finance Department decided to revoke all the benefits and conveyed it to the administrative department and the Additional Inspector General of Police implemented it after allowing an opportunity of showing cause to the Petitioner.

3. The Tribunal has held that it was not shown that the Petitioner was not entitled to the War Service benefits or to the seniority following the grant of such benefit or to the pro forma promotion. The pay having already been granted for the promoted post, it could not be withdrawn.

4. Mr. Khalil Ramdey, learned Advocate‑General has appeared in support of the Petition but he is not able to show any ground on which the respondent could be denied the benefit of War Service or the seniority after granting it to him. The pro forma promotion and the pay following it were within the discretion of the competent authority because for pro forma promotion his suitability had to be determined and for pay his entitlement had to be made out. When the power possessed by the Government was duly exercised in favour of the Respondent and there is no legal defect or infirmity noticeable in the exercise of the discretion, the locus Poenitentiae is not available to the Petitioner to revoke it only because someone thinks that the discretion should not have been exercised in the manner in which it was in fact exercised.

5. The Petition raises no such question of law on which an appeal under Article 212(3) may be competent. Hence leave to appeal is refused.

6. M.Y.H./P‑58/S Petition dismissed.