WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and 3
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed the petitioners to retroactively alter the respondent's move-over date from Scale 19 to Scale 20, granting him all consequential benefits. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the Tribunal erred in its direction, given that the respondent's service record did not meet the requisite 'good' grading standard required by the relevant instructions for such a move-over. The petitioners argued that the respondent's confidential reports for the preceding five years were insufficient to qualify for the promotion. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the failure to communicate adverse remarks in the respondent's confidential reports in a timely manner does not automatically elevate an 'average' service record to a 'good' one. Finding that the contentions raised regarding the interpretation of service rules and the evaluation of the respondent's record required deeper judicial examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
- Does the failure to timely communicate adverse remarks in a service record automatically upgrade an 'average' performance rating to 'good'?
- What are the criteria for qualifying for a move-over from Scale 19 to Scale 20 under WAPDA service instructions?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal direct a retroactive move-over if the service record does not meet the prescribed standards?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. C.J.---On an appeal preferred by the respondent the Federal Service Tribunal has directed the petitioners to consider altering the date of respondent's move-over from Scale 19 to Scale 20 from 1-12-1988 to 1-12-1984 with all the consequential benefits. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is inter alia contended that under the relevant instructions in order to qualify for move-over to Scale-20 the confidential reports of the respondent for the last five years should have been at least good. His service record did not measure up to this standard and for that reason the direction given by the learned Tribunal violated the relevant instructions. The fact that the adverse remarks recorded in his confidential reports were not communicated to him in time would not imply that his service record had to be graded as 'good' as distinguished from `average'.
3. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- FAZAL HUSSAIN Versus MAHMOOD HUSSAIN 2000 MLD 1825
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 684