Find a Lawyer

Case No. 735 of 1985, decided on 2nd April, 1986.

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Promotion to B.P.S.‑18, w.e.f. specific date‑‑Such promotion claimed by civil servant from earlier date‑‑Service Tribunal, held, could not interfere in matters of promotion‑‑However, Tribunal could examine validity of impugned notification by which such civil servant was promoted‑‑Promotion would depend on seniority‑cum‑fitness and subject to availability of post‑‑Civil servant was not entitled to promotion to Grade‑18 w.e.f. Specific date as claimed by her‑‑There being no merit in appeal same was dismissed in limine.

Syed Moinuddin for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun for Respondent,

.‑‑Mrs. Farhat Shaheen Akram, Deputy Directors of Education, Sargodha Division, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the order of the Government of the Punjab contained in the Notification No. S.O. (S.E.) 1‑13/85, dated 24‑9‑1985 whereby the appellant was held to have been promoted from B.P.S.‑17 to B.P.S.‑18 with effect from 26‑8‑1985. The grievance of the appellant is that she was entitled to promotion w.e.f. 1‑3‑1972. The appellant has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education as respondent

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the appellant be declared to have been promoted to B.P.S.18 w.e.f. 1‑3‑1972 instead of 26‑8‑1985 by the modification of the Notification.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Mrs. Farhat Shaheen Akram joined as Teachress of Local Council High School and working as Headmistress in M.C. Girls High School, Block No. 26/27, Sargodha prior to the Provincialization vide Notification No. S.O. VI(L.G.)4(4)/72; dated 27‑8‑1975. The appellant remained as Headmistress in the said school till 12‑10‑1985 when she was transferred as Deputy Directress of Education. The plea of the appellant is that she was drawing pay under B.P.S.‑18 at the time of Provincialisation whereas the respondent's version is that she was not in B.P.S.‑18 rather was in the selection Grade. Subsequently the appellant was granted B.P.S.‑18 vide Notification No. S.O.(SE)‑1‑13/85, dated 24‑9‑1985 w.e.f. 26‑8‑1985 The appellant felt aggrieved on the plea that it was against the term and conditions of the Provincialization. Hence this appeal.

4. Before the case could be admitted to the regular hearing the written comments of the respondent‑Department were obtained and

arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney were heard.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was already drawing the pay of B.P.S.‑18 at the time of Provincialisation of her service and as such the issue of the impugned Notification, dated 24‑9‑1985 showing her promotion. from B.P.S.‑17 to B.P.S.‑w.e.f. 26‑8‑1985 instead of 1‑3‑1972 was harsh and illegal. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that vide the terms and conditions of the Provincialisation the seniority of the appellant was protected. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that since the appellant was already in B.P.S.‑18, therefore, no such Notification was necessary except to show that she stood promoted w.e.f. 1‑3‑1972.

6. The learned District Attorney on the strength of the written objections (comments) of the respondent Department opposed the appeal. The learned District Attorney first raised the preliminary objections on the ground that under proviso of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, the Punjab Service Tribunal was precluded to interfere in the matters of promotions and posting as this matter was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. As on merits the learned District Attorney stated that the appellant was not already promoted to B.P.S.‑18 at the stage of the Provincialisation of her service rather she was only drawing the pay of the Selection Grade. The learned District Attorney further stated that for the promotion from B.P.S.‑17 to B.P.S.‑18 it was not the case of move‑over rather a formal promotion which was granted vide impugned Notification, dated 24‑9‑1985 w.e.f. 26‑8‑1985. The learned District Attorney closed the arguments that the grant of Grade‑18 on basis of Selection Grade of Grade‑17 does not confer the right of promotion to the appellant, which is based on seniority‑cum -fitness and subject to the availability of the post.

7. We have carefully considered the points so raised by learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney. We have also consulted the record including the documents relied upon by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that the appellant was promoted to B.P.S.‑18 at any earlier stage preceding to the impugned Notification. We are inclined to agree with the respondent‑Department as well as the learned District Attorney that this Tribunal cannot interfere in the matters of the promotions. We could only examine the validity of the impugned Notification and find no illegality in it because undisputedly promotions depend on the seniority‑cum‑fitness and subject to the availability of the post and in the case of the appellant she was granted promotion to B.P.S.‑18 from B.P.S. ‑17 w.e.f. 26‑8‑1985 vide impugned Notification, dated 24‑9‑1985. There is no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was entitled to promotion to Grade‑18 w.e.f. 1‑3‑1972. If this was so for the sake of arguments without conceding then the appellant should have sought remedy within prescribed limit and should not have waited for 13 years. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine.

No order for the cost

A.A. 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.