1988 PLC(CS) 507

MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER) .‑‑The above‑noted fourteen identical appeals involving the same question of law and facts are being disposed of by this single consolidated order.

2. The appellants are employees of the Respondent‑Department and were promoted as Assistant Directors in BPS‑16 on different dates. The Post of Assistant Director was, however, upgraded from BPS‑16 to BPS‑17 and the appellants were appointed to the upgraded posts with effect from 18‑10‑1983. It is the case of the appellants that the President of Pakistan had approved the upgradation of the posts on 21‑5‑1983 and as such the upgradation of the appellants should also take effect from that very date. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that it has been the practice of the Respondent‑Department to upgrade the incumbents of the posts alongwith the posts but in the present cases the appellants had been discriminated against..

3. A preliminary objection about‑ the limitation was taken on behalf of the Respondent‑Department by urging that the appeals having been filed in 1986 against the decision taken by the departmental authorities in 1983 are hopelessly timebarred. On the other hand, an application for condonation of delay has been filed on behalf of the appellants seeking condonation mainly on the ground that during the intervening period they have been pursuing their remedy in the departmental hierarchy and they were assured by some departmental officers that their grievance would be redressed in the Department itself and as such they could not file the present appeals earlier. We have, however, persistently held that depending on the assurance of the departmental authorities for redressal of the grievances is not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the time spent in making repeated representations before the departmental authorities cannot be excluded. The above‑noted appeals are thus hopelessly timebarred and the appellants‑ have failed to explain or account for such an inordinate delay. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, rejected.

4. Apart from the above, the appellants do not seem to have any case even on merits. For, a perusal of the record has revealed that the President of Pakistan was pleased to approve the upgradation of the posts of the Assistant Director and the Assistant Deputy Director General from BPS‑16 to BPS‑.17 from the date the posts in higher grade are filled by processing the cases of appointment of the existing incumbents to the upgraded posts in accordance with the prescribed I procedure. Quite obviously, it is only. the approval of the President of 'Pakistan which benefited the appellants otherwise such upgradation could not be claimed as of right and it is allowable only to the extent it was granted. As said above, the President of Pakistan had approved the upgradation of the posts with effect from the date on which the existing incumbents of the posts were appointed to the upgraded posts in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Indeed, the said decision of the President is unexceptionable and cannot be called in question before this Tribunal.‑ The contention raised on behalf of the appellants that earlier incumbents of some other posts were upgraded by the Department from the date of upgradation of the posts and as such the appellants were also entitled to upgradation from the date the posts were upgraded but it was not so done by the Respondent‑Department and the appellants were thus discriminated against, does not carry any force simply because it was well within the competence of the concerned authorities to effect the upgradation of the incumbents from the date of the upgradation of the posts but as said above, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and, in the instant cases the competent authority was not debarred from taking the impugned decision. After all, it is the same decision of the President, which was adopted for upgradation of the posts held by the appellants and thereby benefiting them; the appellants, therefore, cannot be allowed to turn round and say that the said decision was valid for one purpose and invalid for another. The plea that on the upgradation of the posts held by the appellants they were automatically upgraded, being devoid of any substance is also repelled.

5. In view of the foregoing, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. A, copy of the order shall be placed by the office in each of the above‑noted files.

S. Q. /402/Sr.F

Appeal dismissed.