Syed ISHTIAQ ALI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Ministry Of Interior And 11 Other
The petitioner, a Stenotypist in the Regional Passport Office, Islamabad, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal order that dismissed his challenge to his reversion from the post of Superintendent. The petitioner had been promoted to the post of Superintendent on a purely temporary and ad hoc basis in 1981, with the stipulation that the promotion was until further orders and would not affect the seniority of others. In 1984, he was reverted to his original post of Stenotypist. The petitioner argued that having held the higher post for over three years, he should not have been reverted without cause. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the initial promotion was explicitly ad hoc and temporary. Furthermore, the court noted that the reversion actually resulted in the petitioner's original post being upgraded to National Basic Pay Scale No. 12, which was more beneficial to him. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had no vested right to challenge the reversion order and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
- Does an employee promoted on a purely temporary and ad hoc basis have a vested right to challenge their reversion to their original post?
- Can an employee claim a right to a higher post based solely on the duration of their ad hoc service?
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J: --Syed Ishtiaq Ali petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 20-5-1988, whereby his appeal against the order of his reversion dated 20-9-1984, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Stenotypist in Grade-8 in the Regional Passport Office, Islamabad, in the year 1973 and was promoted as Superintendent Grade-10, vide order dated 11-6-1981, on purely temporary and ad hoc basis, with immediate effect till further orders and also with direction that his promotion will not affect the seniority of those senior to him. He was reverted to his original post of Stenotypist on 20-9-1984. He preferred a departmental appeal before the Secretary- General Ministry of Interior, Islamabad, who vide his order dated 15-4-1985 informed the petitioner that his appeal after due consideration was not accepted. Being dissatisfied the petitioner filed appeal against the said order before the Federal Service Tribunal which also failed through the impugned judgment which was pronounced on 20-5-1988 and written on 30-5-1988.
3. The learned A.O.R. In support of this petition urged that the petitioner held the post of Superintendent for more than 3 years and thus without any cause he should not have been reverted to his original post of Stenotypist. A perusal of the record shows that the initial order of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Superintendent was purely on ad hoc basis, till further orders and also the extract from the minutes of the meeting of departmental promotion committee held on 22-1-1984 is worth mentioning that the reversion of the petitioner to his original post of Stenotypist then upgraded to National Basic Pay Scale No.12 is more beneficial to the petitioner. Thus, we feel that the petitioner had no right to challenge his order of reversion and the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting his appeal.
4. Under the circumstances, we feel that there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.