Captain (Retd.) MUHAMMAD YUNUS JAFFAR vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 14-9-1986 by which an appeal filed by petitioner was partly allowed, in that, the Tribunal held that he is entitled to promotion to the post in Grade B-18 with effect from 10-8- 1980, and not from 4-10-1979 as claimed by him.

2. ' The facts of this case briefly stated arc that petitioner who was commissioned in the Army in 1968, joined civil service on 4-10-1974 in Tribal Area Group (TAG) in a post in Grade B-17.

3. ' When the question of his promotion to a post in Grade B-18 arose, the matter came up before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) at its meeting held on 10-8-1980 but it was deferred till his appeal against the adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports for the past years was decided. In the next two meetings held on 18-1-1981 and 30-5-1981, D.P.C. Again deferred petitioner's case for the same reason, and finally at the meeting held on 6-10-1981 his case was recommended for promotion. The Appointing Authority, however did not pass any order on the said report observing that petitioner's record for another year should be awaited. Finally, the Appointing Authority approved petitioner's promotion with effect from 19-4-1982.

4. ' Petitioner however claimed that his promotion should be ante-dated to 4-10-1979, the date on which he completed five years' service in the post in Grade B-17. The Service Tribunal however accepted the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that he was entitled to seniority on the principle laid down in ESTACODE 1983 Edition, in Paragraph 'B'in clause (b) which provides that when in a single reference, a case before the D.P.C. Is held up in respect of a person for reasons beyond control of such person, the recommendations of the D.P.C. When made subsequently, shall he deemed to have been made on the day when the recommendation in respect of the original batch was made. Acting on this principle, the Service Tribunal held that the recommendation of the D.P.C. Made at its meeting on 6-10-1981 shall he deemed to have been made on 10-6-1980 when for the first time the hatch of the petitioner was considered and his name was deferred.

5. ' So far as petitioner's claim to promotion from ante-date with effect from 4-10-1979 when he completed five years' service in the post in Grade B-17 is concerned, the Service Tribunal rejected the same for the reasons which may be reproduced hereunder: "The appellant had also taken the stand that promotion should be antedated to 4-10-1979 when he completed five years' service in B-17. This stand was taken because according to him the hatches which were approved prior to 10-8-1980 and also subsequent to 10-8-1980 had been given seniority from the date they completed five-years' service in B-17. According to him, this was done in the case of persons belonging to the offices of the District Management Group; the two groups having merged in the meantime with effect from 3-12-1981. We do not find any force in this argument. Since all the batchmates of the appellant who were recommended in the meeting of the D.P.C. On 10-8-1980 were appointed with immediate effect and not retrospectively, the appellant cannot be given seniority over them even if they are otherwise senior to him. If we ante- date the seniority of the appellant to date when he completed five years' service, then he would become senior to persons who were originally senior to him, but were not given promotion or seniority retrospectively on completing 5 years' service. Therefore, this claim of the appellant is rejected."

6. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. We find that no exception can be taken with the view that has prevailed with the Service Tribunal. There is, therefore, no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.