Find a Lawyer

Case No. 86/1598 of 1982.

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Pro forma promotion‑‑Cannot be claimed as a right‑‑Department accepted appellant's claim for seniority but denied pro forma promotion on ground that it would upset entire structure in cadre and create unsurmountable difficulties‑‑Tribunal upheld decision holding that pro forma promotion cannot be claimed as of right and it is absolutely for department to see whether a civil servant can be granted pro forma promotion or not.

Zafar Iqbal Bajwa for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑‑ Muhammad Saleem Bhatti has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Govern ment of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore, Director General (Research) Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad and Farzand Ali Khan, Assistant Botanist (Wheat), Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that respondent No.1 be directed to assign pro forma promotion to the appellant in N.P.S.17 plus Rs.150 S.P., w.e.f. 25‑9‑1968, being the senior to respondent No.3 Farzand Ali Khan, taking into consideration the provision of West Pakistan Agriculture Service (Research Wing) Class II Rules, 1963.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was Agriculture assistant, was promoted to the post of Assistant Botanist (Wheat) in N.P.S.17 plus 150 S.P., w.e.f. 28‑2‑1978, whereas respondent No.3 Farzand Ali Khan joined as Agriculture Assistant on 27‑8‑1956 and was transferred to Research Cadre/Wing at his own request on 8‑6‑1963. Farzand Ali Khan respondent No.3 was promoted as Assistant Botanist w.e.f. 26‑9‑1968. During this period a number of persons decidely senior to the appellant were also promoted. Aggrieved against this seniority, the appellant filed a representation before the competent authority and who after considering the entire case came to the conclusion that the appellant was senior to Farzand Ali Khan and thus Farzand Ali Khan was brought down and placed junior to the appellant. After the said grievance was so redressed by the Department, the appellant moved with another prayer that he should be given pro forma promotion from the date his junior Farzand Ali Khan was promoted i.e. the year 1968. The department after considering his request, found that nine persons senior to the appellants, also had made the same request, but due to practical difficulties, the department was of the considered opinion that none of them could be given pro forma promotion and thus rejected the case of the appellant as well as of nine other seniors 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 Depart ment and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. We have taken into consideration the stand of the Government in this behalf and find that Government has frankly conceded that they have found the appellant senior to Farzand Ali Khan and have restored him his due seniority by placing Farzand Ali Khan junior to him. However, the Department has expressed its inability to grant pro forma promotion to the appellant as well as nine others senior who joined hands in this matter with the appellant on the ground that pro forma promotion, if so granted, would upset the entire structure in the cadre and would create practical difficulties, which according to them, were unsurmountable. It has also been urged on behalf of the Department that pro forma promotion cannot be claimed as a right by any civil servant and it is for the department to see whether the same can be granted or not.

6. We have no dispute with the proposition so propounded before us on behalf of the respondent Departments through the learned District Attorney and have no hesitation to hold that pro forma promotion cannot be claimed as a right and it is absolutely for the department to see that in the circumstances, the civil servant can be granted to formal promotion or not. In this ease so before us, we are in accord with the Department, when we find that at this belated stage, if pro forma promotion is granted to the appellant from 1968, it will definitely change the entire structure of the cadre and will open floodgate of litigation amongst its strength.

7. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Department by rejecting the case of pro forma promotion to the appellant. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed as being without any justification. 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.