Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 2007

GOVERNMENT OF N. W.F.P. Through Chief Secretary And Another vs MUHAMMAD AJMAL And 2 Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 2007
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 83-P of 1985 Appeal No. 86 of 1984
Date1986-10-25
Judge(s)Abdul Qadir Shaikh, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Khan
Authored byAli Hussain Qazilbash
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Government of N.-W.F.P. against the judgment of the Provincial Service Tribunal, which set aside the retrospective promotion of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The core legal issue was whether the Government possesses the authority to grant civil servants promotion with retrospective effect in the absence of a specific governing law, rule, or regulation, and whether administrative letters can confer such powers. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision and refused leave to appeal, holding that the Government failed to produce any rule or regulation authorizing retrospective promotion. The Court laid down the key principle that administrative letters are purely executive instructions that cannot be equated with law or statutory regulations, nor can they be pressed into service to affect or override the established rights of parties regarding seniority and promotion.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the Government grant civil servants promotion with retrospective effect in the absence of an express rule or regulation?
  • Do administrative letters carry the force of law or regulation to affect the legal rights of parties?
retrospective promotionservice lawseniority listadministrative lettersProvincial Service Tribunalleave to appeal

ORDER

ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--The Government of N.-W.F.P. Through the Chief Secretary seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Provincial Service Tribunal, dated 17-1-1985, whereby the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 with retrospective effect was set aside.

2. The facts of the case have been given by the learned Chairman, Provincial Service Tribunal in detail and we need not repeat them. Suffice it to say that a seniority list of the senior scale stenographers as it stood, on 1-7-1983 was published by the Government wherein respondents 2 and 3 were shown junior to their batch-mates. On their representation, however, the Government promoted them senior to respondent No. 1 with effect from 17-7-1974 as per order, dated 11-4-1984.

This was challenged by way of an appeal by respondent No. 1 before the Provincial Service Tribunal.

This appeal was heard and through the impugned judgment the order of promotion of respondents 2 and 3 was set aside.

3. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate-General and gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal and are of the view that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal do not require any interference in that no rule or regulation was produced by the Government either before the Tribunal or before this Court authorising it to order promotion with retrospective effect. The two letters, dated 10-5-1974 and 8-11-1974 (on pages 60 and 62 of the paper book) which are being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not only not relevant but they cannot be equated with any law or regulation. They are simply administrative letters and cannot be pressed into service for affecting the rights of the parties. No case has been made out for grant of leave.

The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.