Pakistan Case LawALI AHMAD Versus DIRECTOR (ADMN.) FIA, and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding seniority and pro forma promotion. The petitioner, a Head Constable in the Federal Investigation Agency, challenged the denial of his request for seniority restoration and pro forma promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.) from the date his juniors were promoted, following the withdrawal of a prior reversion order. The core legal questions were whether the appeal was barred by limitation due to an amendment and whether the petitioner was entitled to pro forma promotion despite not having completed the mandatory training course. The Supreme Court held that while the Tribunal erred in its computation of limitation—as the limitation period should be calculated from the date of the original appeal filing rather than the amendment—the petition failed on merits. The Court affirmed that pro forma promotion could not be granted retrospectively because the petitioner had not successfully completed the required Intermediate Training Course until December 1990, thereby establishing that promotion eligibility is contingent upon fulfilling mandatory service qualifications.
- Is the limitation period for an amended appeal computed from the date of the original appeal filing?
- Can a civil servant claim pro forma promotion prior to completing mandatory training requirements?
- Does the withdrawal of a reversion order automatically entitle a civil servant to retrospective seniority and promotion?
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Ali Ahmad, petitioner seeks leave to appeal from order dated 28-1- 1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed.
2.The petitioner was promoted as Head Constable F.I.A. On 1-8-1983. He was proceeded against departmentally and on 21-2-1984, was awarded minor penalty of withholding one increment with accumulative effect on 21-4-1985, he was also reverted to the rank of Constable. He filed appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of his reversion and the department had to withdraw the order of his reversion on 7-9-1989.
3.On the withdrawal of the order of his reversion and after some time the petitioner was sent to Intermediate Training Course and was promoted as A.S.I. On 11-5-1992. The petitioner made representation for restoration of his original seniority with effect from 1-8-1983 as Head Constable and claimed pro forma promotion as A.S.I. From 1987 when his juniors were promoted. His representation was rejected.
4.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the departmental authority, the petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed on 28-1-1993, being barred by time as well as on merits.
5.In support of this petition learned counsel for petitioners contended that the relief claimed in the original appeal and the amended appeal being the same the appeal could not have been dismissed on the point of limitation. It was also contended that once the order of reversion of the petitioner was withdrawn by the departmental authority his original seniority revived and he was entitled to promotion as A.S.I. From the date his juniors were promoted.
6.We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and find that there is substantial force in the first submission that when the amendment in the appeal was allowed the limitation was not computed from the date of amendment but from the date the original appeal was filed before the Tribunal. We find, however, that the contention raised by the petitioner on merit is devoid of substance. The petitioner could only be promoted after he had undergone successful Intermediate Training Course. Admittedly, he qualified the training course in December, 1990, he was, therefore, due for promotion thereafter. He was promoted as A.S.I. On 11-5-1992 after he had passed the training course, he, therefore, cannot claim pro forma promotion prior to the abovementioned date.
5. The order of the Tribunal on merit, therefore, suffers from no legal infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court. This petition being without merit is dismissed and .
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments