Find a Lawyer

Case No. 15/1082 of 1981, decided on 4th October, 1982.

‑‑ Promotion‑Pre‑promotion Departmental Examination‑Drafts man of Electricity Department appointed in WAPDA service -Claiming promotion to Grade‑l6‑‑Request rejected due to not passing Departmental Professional Examination prescribed by WAPDA‑Claim in appeal stressed on basis of policy letter of Punjab Government exempting civil servants from pre‑promotion examinations in relation to all posts to Grade‑16‑Contention that such letter being subsequent in time did not form part of terms and conditions of service of appellant on his transfer to WAPDA service‑Rejection . of claim in absence of passing Departmental examination, in circumstances, held, not exceptionable‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

J. V. Gardner for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

In this case the appellant, C. D. Wilson, prays that he be fixed in NPS‑16 in. his capacity as Circle Head Drafstman, w. e. f. 5th August, 1975, and since he has superannu ated on 1st July, 1980, he be paid his dues and retirement benefits accordingly. In this context the appellant impugne3 the order dated 20th November, 1977, issued by the Chief Engineer, WAPDA Electricity Lahore Region, whereby the appellant's representation for promotion was rejected.

2. The appellant joined service in the defunct Electricity Branch of the Punjab Government in 1946. In 1958 when the Water and Power Development Authority came into being he was transferred to that organization with other staff of the Electricity Branch. There he retired as Draftsman Grade 'A' which is equivalent to Circle Head Draftsman in the Provincial Government's Engineering Departments.

3. The parties were heard. It was the contention of the appellant that the Punjab Government had reserved a certain percentage of posts, of Draftsmen of various categories in the Irrigation and other engineering departments for grant of NPS‑16, provided the claimants had more than 10 years' service and were otherwise fit to go into that grade. Since the appellant continued to be governed by the service rules of the Provincial Government and since his terms and conditions could not be varied to his disadvantage by WAPDA, he was entitled to be promoted to NPS‑16. As to the condition of passing the requisite examination for going into NPS‑16, imposed by WAPDA, the appellant cited the Punjab Government's circular letter of 5th October, 1975, which exempts civil servants from pre‑promotion examinations in relation to all posts of Grade‑16 and above.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, replying to the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant, stated that the only provision which could be availed of by the appellant was the one whereby diploma engineers (as distinct from graduate engineers) were entitled to placement in NPS‑16 if they had completed 10 years service and were certified diploma engineers. The appellant had no diploma and such persons were specifically barred from promotion to NPS‑16 under that provision. When the appellant's representation was turned down he was informed that he could be allowed NPS‑16 only if he passed the Departmental Professional Examination prescribed by the Authority. However, the appellant retired on superannuation on 1st July, 1980, and now there was no question of granting him NPS‑16. As for the Punjab Government circular letter of 5th October, 1975, the concession contained therein would not be applicable to the appellant who joined WAPDA service in 1958. That circular in no manner related to his terms and conditions of service.

5. Before arguments on 'merits, learned counsel for respondents took objection to the appeal on the ground of limitation. It was sub mitted that the impugned order was passed on 20th November, 1977, whereas the appeal with this Tribunal had been filed on 8th January, 1981, i. e. after more than three years. There was an application for condonation of delay but that application did not elaborate the reasons for such a long delay and merely asked for condonation. In reply learned counsel for the appellant referred to a large number of citations from the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the Service Tribunals to show that the grievances of the appellant was of a continuing nature and as such was not terminable by the impugned order. Case law was also quoted to press the point that in service appeals the law of limitation was not to be applied too strictly. We would have referred to the citations in our judgment but as we find no merit in the appeal itself, we feel that there is no need to discuss the respective arguments made in this behalf for the appellant and for the respondents.

6. In the judgment announced by this Tribunal on 31st December, 1980, in the appeal of Nazim Hussain and 56 others v. Secretary to Govern ment C & W Department, the matter of Circle Head Draftsman and other draftmen for promotion to NPS‑16 on the basis of long service (in pursuance of the provision about 10 years' service to qualify for such promotion) was elaborately dealt with. In that appeal it was prayed that the draftsmen who had completed 10 years service, and in the case of the appellants had 20 to 23 years service to their credit, should be exempted from passing the departmental examination and be promoted to NPS‑16 without being required to fulfil that condition. The appeal was rejected on the ground that the requirement/condition of passing the departmental examination was nothing unusual. In view of our decision in the above‑cited appeal we cannot see our way to giving to the appellant a concession which we refused to Nazim Hussain, etc., his case being identical to theirs. When the appellant's representation was turned down on 20th November, 1977, there was still time for him to pass the examination, which he should have been able to do after his long experience as draftsman, but, speaking colloginally, he missed the bus and now having superannuated it is too late for him to mend matters.

In view of the reason given in the preceding paragraph the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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