Pakistan Case Law
1997 SCMR 515

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary Education And Another S

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1997 SCMR 515
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.611-L of 1995 Appeal No.494 of 1992
Date1995-12-20
Judge(s)Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas
Authored bySaad Saood Jan
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had directed the Government to grant B.P.S.-19 status to the respondents effective from September 1, 1990. The dispute arose after the Provincial Government introduced a four-tier structure for college teachers in 1990, but the Education Department took two years to finalize appointments according to the new ratio. The respondents, whose promotions were delayed until 1992, argued they were entitled to the promotion from the date the notification was issued, as vacancies existed at that time. The Government contended that civil servants possess no inherent right to claim promotion from a back date, regardless of vacancy availability. The Supreme Court held that while the Government's general proposition regarding back-dated promotions is correct, the delay in this specific instance was solely attributable to administrative inefficiency within the Education Department in executing a straightforward task. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, upholding the order granting the respondents the benefit of the promotion from the date the vacancies became available.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a civil servant have an inherent right to claim promotion from a back date simply because a vacancy existed at that time?
  • Can a court or tribunal grant relief to civil servants for delayed promotions caused by administrative negligence in the department?
  • Is the government's delay in implementing a promotion structure a valid ground for a service tribunal to order promotion from the date of the notification?
service lawpromotionback-dated promotionadministrative delaycivil servantservice tribunalspecial leave to appeal

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby it allowed the appeal of the respondents and directed the Government to allow B.P.S.-19 to them with effect from 1-9-1990.

2. There were 12092 posts in the College Teachers Cadre (General). The Provincial Government decided to introduce a 4-tier structure for the college teachers and with that object it classified the posts in the ratio of 1:15:34:50 in the four-tiers, namely, B.P.S.20, 19, 18 and 17, respectively. The relevant notification was issued on 1-9-1990. Thereafter, the functionaries in the Education Department took to years to make the appointments in accordance with the above ratio. This exercise held up the promotions of the respondents to -Grade-19 till 1992. They represented to the Government that as vacancies in B. P.S.19 were available on 1-9-1990 when the notification in question was issued they should have been promoted from that date. Their representation was rejected by the Government whereupon they filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted their appeal and directed the Government to promote them with effect from 1-9-1990. The Government seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Tribunal.

3. On behalf of the Government it is contended that no civil servant has a right to claim that he should be promoted from a back date even though a vacancy may be existing on the date from which the promotion is being claimed. This is no doubt true but here there are no orders by the Government that the respondents should be held up for sometime. The delay in making the promotions occurred entirely due to the reason that the officials of the Education Department could not carry out a fairly simple exercise within a reasonable period. In the circumstances it will not be appropriate for the Court to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. Leave is refused.

Cited by 9 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.