Find a Lawyer

Case No. 534/1353 of 1981, decided on 28th July, 1982.

‑‑‑ S. 4‑‑Bar of jurisdiction‑Ad hoc appointee‑Rendered 28 years service, often held charge of higher post but was denied regular promotion‑Appeal before Tribunal not maintainable due to bar of jurisdiction as Civil Servant can only be promoted by department itself.

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.

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

Shaukat Ali, Assistant Engineer, Office of the Project Director, Survey, Planning and Design, Public Health Engineering Department has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals, Act 1974 in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Lahore and the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appellant be declared to be entitled to be regularly inducted as Sub‑Divisional Officer from the date earlier to his juniors who have not superceded the appellant and the respondents may be directed to pay to the appellant, the remunerations of the post of the Sub‑Divisional Officer with effect from 7th February, 1972 till todate.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis as Sub‑Divisional Officer but was later on reverted to 1972 to the substantial post which he held as Sub‑Engineer. The appellant has been holding number of times charge of the post of the S. D. O. in his own pay and scale but has not been able to become a regular Sub‑Divisional Officer. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the department and perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

The main grievance put forward on behalf of the appellant is that he has 28 years of length of service in the department and during which period many of his juniors have regularly been promoted as Sub‑Divisional Officer. Whereas the appellant has not been able to reach this in regular manner. It has been further submitted that the appellant has been holding since long charge of the Senior post of the Sub‑Divisional Officer but the regular status of the same has not been conferred upon him and he has also been denied the pay of said post while actually he has been performing the duties attached to the said post.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the grievances of the appel lant and find that although an ad hoc appointee he was reverted in 1972 and accepted the such reversion without any demur. However, he filed suit before a Civil Court but the same was dismissed in 1974 and his review petition was also rejected in September, 1975 in the said form. We have carefully scanned the record of this case and have been able to find nowhere that the appellant was promoted on regular basis to the post of Sub‑Divisional Officer, therefore, his claim that he should be given the status of S. D. O. by this Tribunal is without any force, It is well‑settled principle of Law that a Civil Servant can only be promoted by the department itself and the jurisdiction of this tribunal is barred by section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act in positive manner in this respect. More over, in the case of appellant we further find that he was not considered suitable by the Public Service Commission for the post of S. D. O. when the case of appellant was forwarded before the said authority. At present the appellant is holding the post of Sub‑Engineer in the department and when he was allowed to hold the additional charge of Sub‑Divisional Officer he always held the same in his own pay and grade. Under the circum stances it is not possible to give any relief to the appellant for our lack of jurisdiction.

Before aparting with this case we will observe that the case of the appellant be examined by the department in view of his long service and good record if possible.

Beside this observation, we do not find any merits in this appeal and thus we dismiss the same due to lack of jurisdiction.

M. I. 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.