MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others vs THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE and another
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals regarding the withdrawal of their promotions and recovery of pay. The petitioners were promoted to O.T. Assistants, a post designated under the rules for direct recruitment rather than promotion. Upon discovering the illegality, the competent authority withdrew the promotion orders, reverted the petitioners to their substantive lower posts, and initially ordered the recovery of the higher pay drawn, though the Service Tribunal waived the recovery. The core legal question is whether the withdrawal of promotion orders made in violation of recruitment rules constitutes an unlawful reduction in rank and whether recovery of pay for duties performed on higher posts is permissible. The Supreme Court held that since the promotions were void ab initio, the petitioners were never legally promoted, and thus the reversion was not a penalty of reduction in rank. The Court affirmed the Service Tribunal's decision and refused leave to appeal, holding that no question of law of public importance was involved.
- Whether promotion to a post meant exclusively for direct recruitment is void ab initio?
- Does the withdrawal of an illegal promotion order constitute reduction in rank as a penalty?
- Is a civil servant entitled to retain the pay of a higher post for the period functions were performed against it even if the promotion was void?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to decide the titled petitons involving identical questions of law and facts.
2. The petitioners were promoted to the posts of O.T. Assistants though the said posts according to the rules, were to be fulfilled through direct recruitment. On coming to know that the appointments through. Promotion of the petitioners against the said posts were violative of law and the rules, the competent authority withdrew those orders and petitioners were asked to perform functions on the lower posts from which they were promoted which were their substantive appointments. Alongwith this, an order was also passed for the recovery of the pay which the petitioners had been drawing against, the promoted posts. They filed departmental representations against this order but having failed to receive any response, filed appeals before the Service Tribunal which have been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 23-5-2002 against which leave is sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy as that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed through promotion were promotion posts whereas it has been concurrently held by all the Authorities as a matter of fact that the said posts under the rules were to be filled by direct recruitment, therefore, it was not a case of reduction in rank, as penalty as it being argued by the learned counsel but a case where appointments through promotion were void, ab initio, therefore, the petitioners shall be deemed to have never been promoted.
4. The Service Tribunal has done justice in these cases by directing that recovery of difference of pay which the petitioners had drawn against the promoted posts shall not be made, for even otherwise, a civil servant who had performed functions against higher post, was held entitled to the pay of the said post during the said period.
5. No question of law of public importance is involved in this case. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, these petitions are dismissed and leave refused.