PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through the Secretary Communication and Works vs YAQOOB ELAHI JOYIA
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Province of Punjab against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which converted the respondent's appointment as S.D.O. on a current-charged basis into an appointment on an officiating basis from 8.5.1988. The core legal question was whether the respondent's appointment on a current-charged basis against a post falling within the direct recruitment quota could be legally converted to an officiating basis. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Tribunal's decision contained no legal infirmity warranting interference, noting that the department itself later recognized the necessity of officiating appointment and that the respondent had continuously served in that higher capacity. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where an appointment on a current-charged basis is found improper under the rules, the competent authority cannot arbitrarily deny converting it to an officiating capacity from the initial date of service once the employee has fulfilled the duties of the higher post.
- Can an appointment made on a current-charged basis be converted into an appointment on an officiating basis?
- Whether an employee appointed to a higher post on a current-charged basis is entitled to the benefit of officiating service from the initial date of appointment?
- Rule 13, relevant rules
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.1.2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent has been accepted and his appointment as S.D.O. From 8.5.1988 on current-charged basis has been converted into appointment on officiating basis.
2. The respondent was working as a Sub-Engineer when on the availability of a higher post of S.D.O.
He was appointed as such on current-charged basis with effect from 8.5.1988. He continued working in that capacity when on 9.7.1991 an order was passed for the withdrawal of his said appointment as S.D.O. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the respondent approached the Tribunal through an appeal which has been accepted in the above terms.
3 The Tribunal concluded that under the law and the rules no promotion of an officer from lower grade to a higher grade on current-charged basis could be made under Rule 13 of the relevant rules. The petitioners could not, in such circumstances, appoint the respondent on current-charged basis as S.D.O. From 8.5.1988, therefore, it was converted into an appointment on officiating basis as provided in the said rule.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has admitted that the promotion of the respondent from the post of sub-Engineer to S.D.O. Is in line but submitted that the post which became available on 8.5.1988 fell in the quota of direct recruits, therefore, till such time a selectee from outside was available the appointment ' of the respondent was made on current-charged basis.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the departmental representatives could not point out any rule other than Rule 13 relied upon by the Tribunal which makes the provisions for making appointment on officiating basis in such a situation. The departmental representative stated that in the year 1995 the department issued an order for appointment of the respondent against the same post on officiating basis during the pendency of the appeal of the respondent in the Tribunal.
From this very fact it is also established that appointment of the respondent made initially on current-charged basis was not considered to be proper and the only proper appointment was in the officiating capacity. Since the respondent had been working as S.D.O. On current-charged basis from 8.5.1988, there was no justification for the department for not converting the said appointment to appoint on officiating basis from the said date and to deprive him from the benefit of such appointment.
The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity to warrant interference by this Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and .