ILYAS HAIDER ZAIDI ADVOCATE vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and 3 others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, challenging the refusal to ante-date his promotion to BPS-16 based on a revised seniority list. The core legal question was whether a revised seniority list automatically entitles a retired civil servant to retrospective promotion from an earlier date without going through the prescribed selection procedure or establishing a vested right. The Supreme Court held that the revision of a seniority list alone is insufficient for ante-dating promotion, as promotion requires a formal procedure through the Selection Board and cannot be granted retrospectively unless a vested right is embedded in a specific rule. The Supreme Court concluded that no case for interference was made out and refused leave to appeal.
- Does the revision of a seniority list automatically entitle a civil servant to retrospective promotion?
- Can a promotion be ante-dated without going through the prescribed procedure of the Selection Board?
- Does a civil servant have a vested right to promotion from a particular date merely on the basis of revised seniority?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 1-3-1992 under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
2. The petitioner had a dispute over seniority in BPS-16. That question of seniority was determined finally by this Court on 22-12-1986 vide decision in Muhammad Umar Malik and others v. Federal Service Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 172. That decision with regard to seniority was given effect to by the Auditor-General of Pakistan by publishing a revised seniority list in accordance with decision of this Court on 12-8-1990. The petitioner has received due place in it. He retired from service in 1990. He still wanted that on the basis of seniority so revised in 1990 his promotion to BPS- 16 which took place on 20-10-1986 should be revised and ante-dated to give effect to his seniority which under the judgment of the Supreme Court started from 4-8-1960 and not from 1-7-1973 on the basis of which he was in fact promoted.
3. It has already been pointed out to the petitioner in his ear tier petition (Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 943 of 1989 decided on 1-7-1990) that the decision of the Supreme Court could not be given retrospective effect nor senioritj list and its revision alone were sufficient for ante-dating promotion, for claiming retrospective promotion 'for which' a procedure through the Selection Board has to be gone into and no vested right "for promotion" from a particular date is made out unless it be "embedded" in some specific rule.
4. No case is made out for our interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.