Find a Lawyer

Case No. 212/370 of 1978, decided on 30th December, 1979.

‑‑---S. 4‑Promotion‑Sub‑Inspector of Police‑Placement in List F' for promotion as Inspector‑Recommendation made by Superintendent of Police considered and rejected by I.-G. of Police‑Such recom mendation, held, of no avail to challenge decision of I.‑G. of Police Matter however to be decided against fresh vacancy on merits.

The appellant, Muhammad Aslam, Sub‑Inspector of Police, has come to this Tribunal with the appeal that he should be considered to have been placed on List F' (which list comprises the names of Sub‑Inspectors approved for promotion as Inspectors) in J976 when his contemporaries in service were thus placed. He also wants arrears of pay arising out of his pro forma promotion as Sub‑Inspector with effect from 1‑ 6‑1971.

2. We have heard the appellant. It was contended on his behalf that the I.‑G., P. was bound to place the appellant's name on list F' when the name of the S. I. junior to him, Muhammad Nawaz (respondent No. 3) was so placed in 1976. The appellant had a good record of service and had been a prisoner‑of‑war in India. His name had been recommended by the S. P., Kasur, but had not been considered by the respondent. Earlier too, the appellant had been the subject of injustice when Muhammad Nawaz had been wrongfully considered senior to him and promoted as S. I. before him. That mistake was, however, rectified later and the appellant had been given pro forma promotion as S. I. with effect from 1‑6‑1971 and confirmed as such with effect from 1‑1‑1974. By all rights, his name should be taken to have been placed on list F in 1976 when that of Muhammad Nawaz was so placed.

The learned Government Pleader contended that the appellant's name had been considered for promotion and for placement in list F' but because it had not been recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Lahore Cantt. it was not approved. The appellant claimed before us that the non‑recommendation from the S. P., Cantonment was not made by the officer who was S. P., Cantonment, when the appellant was posted in the Cantonment but by an officer who happened to be a member of the Selection Committee and was posted as S. P., Cantonment when the appellant's name was being considered. His formal official recommendation had been made by S. P., Kasur.

4. We called for the record. We found from its perusal that the appellant had been recommended for promotion by S. P., Kasur, in June, 1976 but was not approved. In March, 1977 the Inspector‑General asked for his case which was duly recommended by the D. I.‑G. Police, Lahore. In May, 1977, the Inspector‑General sent back his papers with the remarks that the case should be forwarded again when recommendations were invited for placement on list 'F'. After that nothing happened.

5. In respect of payment of arrears of pay consequent to the appellant's pro forma promotion with effect from 1‑6‑1971, the record showed that in March, 1977 an arrears bill had been sent to the Accountant‑General's office and payment was awaited. After that there was no news. It would be advisable and appropriate that immediate steps are taken to ensure payment of the appellant's arrears of salary. March, 1977 is more than 2# years ago and even the A.‑G. Office does not take that long to pass a bill.

6. In view of the fact that the recommendation received from S. P., Kasur was duly considered and rejected the same is of no avail to the appellant. However, as is evident from the record the Inspector‑General Police was agreeable in principle to the appellant's promotion against fresh vacancy, we can only observe and hope that he shall take up again the appellant's case for promotion on its merits at the first available opportunity.

The appeal stands disposed of with the observations above.

Appeal disposed of.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.