Find a Lawyer

Case No: 204/187 of 1983, decided on 23rd January, 1984.,

‑‑ S. 4 (1) (b)‑Appellant asking pro forma promotion during ex. Pakistan leave‑Appeal before Tribunal not maintainable.

Ch. Mushtag Masud for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for 4he State.

‑ Anwar Vincent, ‑Personal Assistant to Member (S and R), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department/Senior Member (Estt.), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Khan, Personal Assistant to Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and Mr. Muhammad Jamil Irfani, Personal Assistant, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore now in Zakat Department as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has ,prayed that the orders, dated 16th February, 1982 and 16th April, 1983 passed by the respon dent No. 1 be set aside and the appellant be 'declared senior to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 with the direction to respondent No. 1 that the appellant be given in absentia promotion in N. P. S. 12 and N. P. S. 14 w. e. f. the dates earlier to the dates of promotion of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was selected/promoted from the post of Junior Clerk to that of Stenotypist w. e. f. 26th March, 1962. The name of the appellant figured at Serial No. 3 and that of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 at Serial Nos. 4 and 5, respectively, in the senio rity list attached at Annexure'A'. The appellant was further promoted as Stenographer vide order, dated 12th June, 1974. Thereafter the appel lant proceeded on leave ex‑Pakistan. When the appellant was on leave ex‑.Pakistan, in the meanwhile, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted to N. P. S. 12 vide order of Board of Revenue, Punjab, dated 23rd October, 1975. As the appellant was on leave ex‑Pakistan he could not be considered for promotion and it was mentioned in the same order that his case would be considered as and when he would return from ex‑Pakistan leave. On return to Pakistan, the appellant was also promoted in N. P. S. 12 w. e. f. 11th October, 1979. The appellant vide his application dated 18th October, 1979 requested the Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab that he may be promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer earlier to contesting respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as he was senior to them as Stenographer in N. P. S. 10 who were promoted to N. P. S. 12 in the year 1975 when he was on leave ex‑Pakistan. He also filed an application to the Full Bench of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The appellant also filed an appeal No. 321/663 of 1980 before this Tribunal which was decided vide judgment, dated 16th August, 1981, whereby the case was remanded to the respon dents. On remand of the case from the Punjab Service Tribunal, the Senior Member (Estt.), Board of Revenue considered the case but the representation of the appellant was rejected vide his order, dated 16th February, 1982. Against this order,, the, appellant filed another appeal before the full Board, Bard of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The full Board vide their order, dated 27th March, 1982 considered his appeal, heard the appellant in person and found the appeal non‑maintainable. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of promotion of the appellant vis‑a -vis contesting respondents No. 2 and 3 was considered by the Board of Revenue for promotion from N. P. S. 10 to N. P. S. 12 in the year 1975. The contesting respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted in N. P. S. 12 but the case of the appellant was not considered at that time as he was out of Pakistan on leave ex‑Pakistan. When the appellant came back, he was also promoted in N. P. S. 12 w. e. f. 11th October, 1979. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the case of the promotion vis‑a‑vis respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was considered by the Revenue Board originally in the year 1975, the appellant should have been also promoted being senior to the contesting respondents. There was no justification for deferring or ignoring the appellant from promotion from due date on the basis that the appellant was on leave ex‑Pakistan as the appellant was very much in service and promotion rights stood protected according to his terms and conditions of his service. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to be promoted in N. P. S., 12 and N. P. S. 14 from the dates the contesting respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted and also restoration of the senio rity of the appellant above respondents Nos. 2 and 3, as he was senior to the respondents when they were promoted to N. P. S. 12 in the year 1975. Concluding his arguments, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant be given absentia promotion in N. P. S. 12 and N. P. S. 14 from the same date the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were pro moted and also the appellant be shown senior to them.

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant's counsel/appellant is asking for the pro forma promotion to be given to the appellant from 23rd October, 1975, the date from which the contesting respondents Nos. 2 and. 3 were promoted. It has been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that this is not within the purview of the Punjab Service Tribunal as per para. 4 (1) (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and hence this appeal is not competent before the Punjab Service Tribunal and is not maintainable. Accordingly it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appeal be dismissed being not maintainable before this Tribunal.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of this case as well. We agree with the arguments of the learned District Attorney that the appellant/appellant's counsel has prayed for a direction to the Departmental Authorities to allow the appellant absentia promotion in N. P. S. 12 and N. P. S. 14 w. e. f. the dates earlier to the dates of promotion of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. This is not within our jurisdiction as per para. 4 (1) (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and thus the appeal is not maintain able and competent before us.

7. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed as such.

There will be no order as to costs.

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.