CHAIRMAN, P.O.F., WAH CANTT vs MUZHAR SHAH
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which granted a move-over from B-16 to B-17 to the respondent civil servant. The core legal question is whether an 'average' performance report, in the absence of any adverse remarks, satisfies the eligibility criteria for move-over under the Notification dated 17-2-1991, which requires at least one 'good' report within the preceding five years. The Service Tribunal, relying on established Supreme Court precedents, held that an 'average' report should be treated as 'generally good' for move-over purposes unless it has been specifically categorized as adverse and communicated as such to the civil servant. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further examine the scope and interpretation of the specific Notification governing move-over eligibility. While granting leave, the Court declined to suspend the operation of the Service Tribunal's order, allowing the respondent to retain the benefit of the move-over pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Does an 'average' performance report qualify as a 'good' report for the purpose of move-over eligibility for civil servants?
- Can an 'average' report be treated as an adverse report if it has not been specifically conveyed as such to the civil servant?
- What is the scope of the Notification dated 17-2-1991 regarding the criteria for move-over from B-16 to B-17?
- Notification No. F.7(1)Impt.1/90-Vol.II, dated 17-2-1991
ORDER
1. ' The Chairman, P.O.F. Has called in question the validity of judgment dated 27-1-1996 as modified by order dated 21-7-1996, passed by the Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No, 168(R) of 1996, whereby move-over has been granted to respondent by treating the average report as good report. In terms of Notification dated 17-2-1991 a civil servant is eligible for move-over from B-16 to B-17 if he gets one good report within last five years inclusion of the year of move-over, Federal Service Tribunal has relied on the decision of this Court reported in PLD 1992 SC 144 wherein it was observed: "If there is no adverse report against him and he gets ' average report' would have to be treated as 'generally good' for purpose of move-over. Because a report 'average cannot be treated as adverse' unless specifically so treated and then conveyed to the civil servant as an adverse report."
2. ' Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court reported in 1994 SCM R 544.
3. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the scope of the Notification No, F.7(1)Impt.1/90-Vol.II, dated 17-2-1991. We are not inclined to suspend the operation of the order of the Service Tribunal.
4. However, the appeal should be heard if an early date.