Dr. SHER ZAMAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the proper implementation of a previous Service Tribunal judgment regarding the petitioner's seniority as a Deputy Secretary and the consequent refusal of the department to grant him promotion to B-20 despite reaching the maximum of his pay scale, purportedly due to an indifferent service record. The Supreme Court considered submissions that juniors were placed above the petitioner, that rules were misapplied retrospectively to block his promotion, and that no adverse remarks existed in his Annual Confidential Reports. The Court held that the points raised in support of the petition deserved consideration, thereby granting leave to appeal and allowing the petition for a full hearing on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents.
- Whether a civil servant is entitled to consequential promotion upon the fixation of his seniority by the Service Tribunal?
- Can promotion be blocked on the basis of an indifferent service record when no adverse remarks have been communicated to the civil servant?
- Whether the implementation of a Service Tribunal judgment regarding seniority warrants the granting of leave to appeal when consequential promotion is refused?
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 16-6-1988 whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Petitioner's appeal was really for the implementation of the earlier judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 16-7-1987 whereby his seniority was fixed as from 26-4-1975, when he joined the .Post of Deputy Secretary in the Federal Government, through lateral entry. The Service Tribunal further directed that petitioner should be considered for promotion as and when he would complete the required length of service.
2. ' In implementation of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 16-6-1988 petitioner's seniority was fixed as from 26-4-1975 and he has no grievance in this regard, but he was aggrieved by the refusal of consequential action regarding his promotion. His case before the Federal Service Tribunal was that although he had reached the maximum of the scale in BPS-19 in December, 1982 yet he was neither granted the benefit of move-over to B-20 nor given the promotion due to him in terms of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. He, therefore, claimed seniority and promotion over the private respondents herein.
3. ' The case of the Department before the Service Tribunal was that petitioner has already been placed at Serial No, 133-A between the names of M/S Niaz Ahmad and Mohammad Saleem Khan in the gradation list of officers of the secretariat Group (B-19). His case for pormotion to B-20 was considered by the Central Selection Board in its meeting held on 14-9-1987 but he was not cleared for promotion, and, in the circumstances, the order of the Federal. Service Tribunal dated 16-7-1987 stands fully implemented. The Service Tribunal agreed with this view and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 16-6-1988.
4. ' Petitioner who appears in person made the following submissions, amongst others: "(a) That the Federal Service Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that 37 Deputy Secretaries junior to the petitioner had been placed over the head of the petitioner in the seniority list prepared by the respondent in violation of the orders of the Tribunal.
(b) It seems that the respondent-I has deliberately blocked the promotion of the petitioner by misinterpreting the rules/instructions made by themselves and applying the same from retrospective effect to the disadvantage of the petitioner and thus the law has been flouted.
(c) The respondent No,1 has blocked the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Secretary on the basis of so-called Indifferent service record' of the petitioner. Throughout his service under the. Federal Government from 26-4-1975 todate not even a single adverse remark has ever been communicated to the petitioner and hence his ACRs are either Very Good, Good, or Average and there is no bar for promotion of Average Officers."'
5. ' The points raised in support of the petition deserve consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal and allow the petition.
6. ' Appeal will be heard on the present record but it is open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.