MUHAMMAD TUFAIL SUBHERA vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Communications and Works Department
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the petitioner's application for restoration of his dismissed service appeal was partly entertained by issuing notice on the stay revival application while the main restoration application was pending. The core legal question concerns whether a civil servant appointed on a current charge basis to a higher post acquires a vested right to regular promotion or protection against reversion, and whether leave to appeal should be granted against an interim order of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that an appointment on a current charge basis does not constitute regular promotion, and no prima facie case or question of law of public importance is made out to warrant interference with an interim order. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Does an appointment on a current charge basis amount to a regular promotion?
- Can a civil servant claim a right against reversion when holding a post on a current charge basis?
- Will leave to appeal be granted against an interim order of the Service Tribunal when no question of law of public importance is involved?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Through this petition, leave to appeal has been sought against the order dated 23-11-1998 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore by which on the application of the petitioner seeking restoration of his appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution by the said Tribunal, notice has been issued in respect of the application made by him for revival of the interim order for 23-12-1998.
2. The petitioner while working against a substantive post in B.P.S.16, was appointed on 21-1-1989 as Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer (BPS-17) on current charge basis which appointment according to him was extended from time to time. He apprehending that on the promotion of the other Sub-Engineers in BPS-16 on the basis of the formula adopted by the respondent allegedly against the quota fixed, he would be sent back to his substantive post, he made representation to the Chief Minister on 9-5-1994 requesting that his appointment on current charge basis as Sub- Divisional Officer should be treated to have been made on promotion on regular basis. Having failed to get relief from the departmental authorities, the petitioner filed appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12-11-1998. He moved an application for restoration of the appeal and an application was also made for revival of the stay order issued by the said Tribunal during the pendency of the appeal on which notice was issued to the respondent through the impugned order dated 23-11-1998 against which leave to appeal has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that the petitioner has any case in the appeal itself even if the same is restored, for the petitioner was appointed as Sub- Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer in B.P.S.17 on current charge basis and not promoted on regular basis to the said post. He when questioned that the petitioner who was initially appointed as Sub-Engineer (BPS-11) and subsequently promoted in B.P.S.16 even if would have been sent back to his substantive post, no question of reversion in rank would have arisen, submitted that subsequently Sub Engineers junior to the petitioner had been promoted to the said post in B.P.S.17 ignoring the petitioner and the relevant rules and the law as regards fixation of quota etc. If the petitioner is feeling aggrieved against the promotion of the other Sub-Engineers as stated by his learned counsel allegedly against law and the rules he may seek remedy independently against the same which shall be decided in accordance with law. As far this petition is concerned, apart from the fact that no question of law of public importance is involved, the impugned order being interim in nature, no prima facie case exists in favour of the petitioner.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave to .