KHURSHID AHMAD vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and 14
This matter concerns a service dispute where the petitioner, a former Key Punch Operator, sought retrospective promotion to the post of U.D.C. and Assistant, claiming he was entitled to such advancement based on a 1970 policy letter that benefited his juniors. The petitioner had previously declined an offer of promotion in 1974, preferring to remain in his existing cadre, and only requested promotion in 1979, which was granted. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim retrospective promotion despite having voluntarily deferred his promotion when it was originally offered in 1974. The Supreme Court held that promotion cannot be thrust upon an employee against their will. Since the petitioner failed to avail himself of the promotion offered in 1974 and only applied in 1979, he had no valid claim to back-dated promotion. The court established the principle that an employee who voluntarily declines a promotion offer cannot subsequently claim retrospective benefits for the period during which they chose not to accept the promotion.
- Can an employee claim retrospective promotion after voluntarily declining a promotion offer?
- Is an employer required to thrust a promotion upon an employee who has requested its deferment?
- Does an employee have a right to back-dated promotion if they failed to apply for the position when it was originally offered?
' FAZAL KARIM, J.---The petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. In Grade-5 on 9-5-1963. On 16-7-1965 he was appointed as Key Punch Operator; he was in Grade-6 when on 15-3-1974 he was offered promotion in Grade-7. However, he preferred to continue as Key Punch Operator in Grade-6 and on his request his promotion was deferred. Then, on his (own request he was promoted on 23-10-1979 as U.D.C.
2. The grievance made by him before the Tribunal was that he had done F.A. In 1967; that by virtue of a letter of the year 1970, his juniors were promoted as U.D.C. And were later promoted as Assistant and that he should like his juniors, also be granted promotion as U.D.C. And then as Assistant from the back date. Before the Tribunal it was conceded that he had not applied for his promotion till 1979 and that as soon as he did so apply, he was granted promotion. It was said that he had not applied for promotion because he was unaware of the promotion policy. The Tribunal repelled that explanation; it appeared to the Tribunal that "he was not willing to serve outside his cadre of Key Punch Operator perhaps due to some other benefits".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that the petitioner could not be deprived of his right of promotion because he had, at one stage, requested for his promotion to be deferred. The real point is that he had not applied for promotion till 1979 and when he did he was given promotion.
Obviously promotion could not be thrust upon him. If the instructions contained in the letter of the year 1970 availed him, then he was entitled to Promotion in 1974, when promotion was actually offered to him. It was he who did not avail of his right to promotion. No question of giving him retrospective promotion, therefore, arises.