GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and anothers
This appeal arose from a judgment by the Lahore High Court, which had directed the promotion of the respondent to B.S. 19 on a regular basis, effective from 1986, and granted him move-over benefits to B.S. 20 from 1987. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court possessed the competence to order the upgradation of an appointment without the approval of the Provincial Government, particularly where such an order entailed financial implications. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the respondent had already retired from service in 1991. Furthermore, the Court observed that subsequent to the High Court's original order, the High Court had been conferred with the necessary powers to create or upgrade appointments as of 1995. Given these intervening factual and legal developments, the Supreme Court determined that it was not a fit case to examine the vires of the High Court's order. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and recalled the leave granting order, effectively declining to adjudicate the merits of the original dispute.
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to examine the vires of a High Court order regarding service promotion when the respondent has already retired?
- Does the subsequent conferment of power upon the High Court to create or upgrade appointments render an appeal against a prior similar order moot?
' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment, dated 17- 6-1992 passed by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,1925 of 1991 filed by the respondent, allowing the same by declaring that "the petitioner stands promoted to B.S.19 on regular basis w.e.f, 1-12-1986 and entitled to move-over to B.S.20 w.e.f, 1-12-1987 and the respondents are hereby directed to issue formal notification forthwith and grant him all the benefits following therefrom".
2. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the High Court was competent to upgrade any appointment without the approval of the Provincial Government particularly when the upgradation involved financial complication.
3. Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of the appellant has vehemently contended that the impugned judgment is not in accordance with law and, therefore, it should be set aside. However, we have noticed that the respondent had already been retired from service w.e.f, 5th April, 1991 and the High Court had now been conferred with the power to create/upgrade any appointment by means of itself since 1995
4. Since the respondent has already stood retired and as the High Court has acquired the necessary powers to upgrade the post though in 1995, in our view it is not a fit case where we should examine the vires of the above order of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and leave granting order is recalled.