Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA‑199 of 1984/Pb., decided on 23^rd May, 1984.

‑‑ S. O. 1‑Promotion to a selection post has to be made from best of lot picked up and to a non‑selection post according to seniority‑cum fitness‑‑Right of employer to decide if a particular person is or is not fit for promotion.

‑‑ S. O. 1‑Promotion‑Direction by Court‑Not a right and no question of violation of any guaranteed right arises and Courts only can issue directions that an employee be considered for promotion but no direction to definitely promote a particular person can be given.

‑‑ S. O. 1‑Railway employee no longer in service‑Claim of pro motion‑Issue of directions by Court‑No such direction can be issued when appellant was no longer in service.

Zafar Saleem for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 20th May, 1984.

The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 29th March, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for pro motion.

2. The appellant has been retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. He after his retirement brought grievance petition for a direction to promote him with effect from 4th February, 1983 with back benefits of promotion. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of R.W. I who stated that the post of Superinten dent was a selection post but according to practice never any selection was made. Learned counsel argues that as for promotion the case was not to go to the selection committee and as the seniority of the appellant is not dis puted, he is entitled to be promoted. Needless to say that for promotion to a selection post best of the lot is to be picked up and to a non‑selection post promotion is made according to seniority‑cum‑fitness. It is the right of the employer to decide if a particular person is or is not fit for pro motion. Thus, promotion is not a right and no question of violation of an guaranteed right arises. The Courts can only issue direction that an employee may be considered for promotion but no direction to definite promote the appellant can be given. Since the appellant is no longer in service, no direction to consider him for promotion can be issued. They grievance petition is misconceived and was rightly dismissed.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. M.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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