Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SUK‑269 of 1980, heard on 3rd January, 1981.

‑‑‑ S. 25‑A‑‑Scope‑Promotion ‑ Cannot be claimed as of right merely because of eligibility‑Workman eligible for promotion Not entitled to file grievance petition if ignored after consideration.

Mutaqqi Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sind P h D 1978 Kar. 703 rel.

Appellant in person.

S. M. A. Alavi for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 3rd January, 1981.

The appellant. who was working as Welfare Assistant in the Divisional Organization of the Railway at Sukkur, filed a grievance peti tion before a Junior Labour Court on 2nd July, 1973 claiming that though he was entitled to promotion as Welfare Inspector, Grade 1, since January, 1966, he had been wrongfully denied this promotion, in spite of various vacancies having occurred in the meanwhile. The Railway Administration resisted the appellant's grievance petition mainly on the ground that the appellant had no vested right to be promoted as Welfare Inspector. The learned Junior Labour Court allowed the grievance petition of the appellant and directed that he be promoted as Welfare Inspector, Grade I, with effect from January, 1966, with payment of difference of back wages and other monetary benefits. The Railway Administration preferred an appeal against the decision of the learned Junior Labour Court to the learned Seventh Labour Court which remand ed the case with the direction that the Junior Labour Court should first decide the three miscellaneous applications made by the Railway Administration and thereafter on the basis of the said orders, give a fresh decision in the case. As in the meanwhile, the Junior Labour Courts were abolished, the case was heard by the learned Labour Court at Sukkur, which has dismissed the appellants grievance petition by its order, dated 18th March, 1980, mainly on the ground that promotion is not a vested right and hence claim to promotion cannot be agitated by way of grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O. Against this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. I have heard the appellant, who appeared in person, and Mr. S.M.A. Alvi, who appeared for the Railway Administration. The appellant, in support of his claim to be promoted as Welfare Inspector, relied upon letter No. 803‑E/113‑XII (E‑VI), dated 28th May, 1962, from the G. M. (P) Lahore to all Divisional Superintendents and Extra Divi sional Offices, Pakistan Railways, which read as follows: ‑

"Promotion of staff to the post of WLIs Gr. 1 (Rs. 185‑300)

In supersession of the previous instructions, it has been decided to restrict eligibility for selection to the post of Welfare Inspectors scale Rs. 185‑300 only to clerks scale Rs. 160‑250 of the personnel Branch. The Welfare Assistants scale Rs. 125‑225 will also be eligible for selection as Welfare Inspectors scale Rs. 185‑300 and 25% of the total number of candidates to be called for the selection will be Welfare Assistants.

2. Railway Servants who are M.A. (Social Work) will also be eligible for selection as Welfare Inspectors scale Rs. 185‑300 irrespective of the post they hold.

3. A revised chart showing channels of promotion of staff for the post of Welfare Inspector and Welfare Inspector (HER) reproduced below .‑

Necessary correction slip to Appendix X of Advance Chapter No. 1 of personnel will be issued separately."

3. The above letter, however, only makes Welfare Assistants and it is not disputed that the appellant during the relevant period was a Welfare Assistant, eligible for promotion to the post of Welfare Inspector, Grade 1. However, as has been pointed out by the Karachi High Court in the case of Mataqqi Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sind (P L D 1978 Kar. 703), there is clearly a distinction between eligibility for promotion and entitlement to be pro moted. It has been observed in the above decision that the word "eligible" in the sense in which it is used in section 9 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, means only legally qualified to be promoted but does not mean entitled to or having vested right to promotion. The policy letter, dated 28th May, 1962, relied upon by the appellant, only make the appellant eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector but does not confer upon him a vested right to such promotion. Under section 25‑A, I. R. O., a worker is entitled to file a grievance petition only in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or tinder any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force. No doubt, the right to be Considered for promotion, where a person is eligible for promotion, is a vested right, as has been pointed in the case of Mutaqqi Hussain, but it would appear that not only the appellant has been considered for pro motion but it is common ground that he has been promoted as Welfare Inspector, Grade 1, since May, 1976.

4. The grievance of the appellant is that in January, 1966 one Muhammad Tufail was appointed as Welfare Inspector ignoring his claim to the said post. He has also claimed that he was not called for the selections for the post of Inspector in 1967‑68 and 1971. He has also alleged that in January, 1,973, one Laiq Ahmed Usmani was appointed as Welfare Inspector against the Rules. None of these appointments or selec tions, even if made or held, can be challenged in these proceedings since they have become time‑barred as the grievance petition by the appellant was filed on 2nd July, 1973. There remains the case of Mohammad Akrarn who is said to have been appointed as Welfare Inspector in May, 1973. However, this gentleman is said to have died some time back and furthermore, as already stated, the appellant has been promoted as Welfare Inspector since 1976. The contention of the appellant, however, is that Mohammad Akram was not eligible for promotion or appoint ment as Welfare Inspector as he belonged to the Watch & Ward Branch of the Railway and not the Personnel Branch. This contention of the appellant is strongly disputed by Mr. Alvi, on behalf of the Railway Administration, and he submitted that Mohammad Akram, although he was working in the Watch & Ward Branch in fact belonged to the Personnel Branch. Since this is a disputed point and no concrete evidence was led thereon by either party it cannot be said that the appointment of Mohammad Akram as Welfare Inspector was incorrect or against the rules. Even if his appointment was incorrect that does not give a right to the appellant to be automatically appointed in his place. At best, the appellant can claim that a fresh selection in accordance with the rules be held. Since the appellant has already been promoted as Welfare Inspector with effect from 1976 the question of making a fresh selection so far he is concerned does not appear to arise.

5. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in this appeal and would, accordingly, dismiss the same.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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