Find a Lawyer

Case No. 192/106 of 1985, decided on 15th September, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Punjab Government Letter No. SOR II(S&GAD)2‑52/73, dated 16‑10‑1973‑‑Promotion‑‑Pro forma promotion‑‑Appellant superseded on account of adverse remarks‑‑Adverse remarks expunged or declared ineffective subsequently‑‑Appellant in circumstances, directed to be considered for promotion, from date his juniors promoted.

Anwar Ali v. Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore 1984 P L C (C.S) 213 rel.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant. I

Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney for Respondent.

‑‑Jameel Ahmad Saleemi, Instructor (Mechanical), Government Polytechnic Institute, Sahiwal 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, Education Department, Lahore as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the respondent‑Government be directed to consider the appellant for promotion as Senior Instructor, w.e.f. 1‑6‑1982 the date, from which his juniors were so promoted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Instructor (Mechanical) Government Ploytechnic Institute, Sahiwal was superseded on account of unsatisfactory service record, vide Government letter, dated 7‑10‑1982 (Annexure 'E') when his other junior colleagues were promoted as Senior Instructor, vide notification, dated 19‑9‑1982 (Annexure 'C'). The position of his service record was that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks for the period from 1‑1‑1980 to 31‑12‑1980, vide letter, dated 30‑4‑1981, which were ultimately expunged, vide letter dated 28‑2‑1983. The appellant was conveyed the adverse remarks for the period from 1‑1‑1981 to 9‑6‑1981, vide letter, dated 20‑11‑1982 which were also expunged, vide letter, dated 15‑5‑1984 (Annexure E/2). The adverse remarks for the year 1964 ‑ June 1965 to February 1966 and 1‑1‑1969 to 31‑12‑1969 were conveyed, vide letter, dated 25‑4‑1982. However, the adverse remarks for the year 1969 were expunged by the Director of Technical Education, Punjab, Lahore, vide his letter, dated 26‑5‑1982 and as far as the remarks for the year 1964 and 1965 are concerned it was intimated to the appellant, vide letter, dated 4‑7‑1982 by the Director of Technical Education, Punjab, Lahore that no action is required on the representation against the adverse remarks 1964 and 1965 according to the instructions on the subject. Thus, all the adverse remarks conveyed to the appellant from time to time were expunged or considered to be inoperative. The appellant submitted an application, dated 16‑5‑1984 (Annexure 'G') to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore that he may be promoted to the post of Senior Instructor from the same date from which his juniors were so promoted as his representations regarding adverse remarks have been accepted. However, the Government of the Punjab, Education Department vide letter, dated 13‑3‑1985 (Annexure 'H') informed the appellant that his case for promotion to the post of Senior Instructor will be taken up alongwith his ‑seniors in due course of time. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e. Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was considered for promotion alongwith his juniors but was superseded due to his adverse remarks for the, year 1980‑81. He has submitted that in view of the policy of the Punjab Government (SGA&I Department) as contained in the Circular letter, dated 16‑10‑1973 (Annexure 'F') the appellant is entitled to be considered for pro forma promotion from the date from which his juniors were so promoted on the expunction of the adverse remarks. He has also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal No.233/219 of 1983, decided on 19‑1‑1983 of Anwar Ali, v. Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as well as 1984 P L C (C.S.) 213.

6. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondent that there were adverse remarks against the appellant pertaining to the year 1964, 1965‑66 and 1969. The appellant was also conveyed adverse remarks for the years 1980 and 1981. Hence the appellant's supersession as ordered vide order, dated 7‑10‑1982 is liable to be sustained on the basis of the adverse remarks so conveyed to the appellant. However, he has agreed that as the adverse remarks have been expunged for the year 1969, 1980 and 1981 and for the years 1965 and 1965 ‑ 1966 will not stand in the way of his promotion as per Policy of the Punjab Government contained in Circular letter, dated 1‑1‑1981, hence, the respondent Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore have already conveyed to the appellant, that his case for promotion to the post of Senior Instructor will be taken up alongwith his seniors in due course of time. Thus, the grievance of the appellant is uncalled for and the appeal may be disposed of accordingly.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the policy letter No. SOR II (S&GAD) 2‑52/73, dated 16‑10‑1973, Government of the Punjab, which lays down the typical cases in which the pro forma promotion is generally granted by the Government, the para. 4 is reproduced below:‑

"Para. 4--‑As regards the second issue, since in view of the Supreme Court's ruling that arrears of salary must be given even for the period of pro forma promotion, it will have to be ensured that pro forma promotion is given only in cases where it is justified on compulsive grounds as illustrated in the subsequent paragraphs.

Pro forma promotion is generally granted in the typical cases mentioned below:‑

(i) The seniority of two officials is in dispute. The senior official is promoted on due date but subsequently the junior official establishes his claim of seniority by obtaining a favourable decision from Government or the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal;

(ii) The official is under suspension or facing a departmental inquiry on serious charges and therefore, his promotion is deferred. Eventually he is exonerated of the charges and he has to be given pro forma promotion from the date on which he would otherwise have been promoted;

(iii) An official is considered unfit for promotion because of adverse remarks in his Character Roll. Subsequently, he succeeds in getting the remarks expunged and claims pro forma promotion; and

(iv) In very rare cases an official might be ignored for promotion due to clerical error or plain negligence."

The appellant's case is covered under (iii) of the above para. The adverse remarks were conveyed, to the appellant and expunged as follows: ‑

(1) Adverse remarks for the period 1‑1‑1980 to 31‑12‑1980, conveyed vide letter, dated 30‑4‑1981 and were expunged by the Director, Technical Education, Punjab, Lahore, vide letter, dated 28‑2‑1983.

(2) Adverse remarks for the period from 1‑1‑1981 to 9‑6‑1981 were conveyed vide letter, dated 20‑11‑1982 and were also expunged, vide letter, dated 15‑5‑1984 of the Director, Technical Education, Punjab, Lahore.

(3) Adverse remarks for the year 1964, June 1965 to February, 1966 and 1‑1‑1969 to 31‑12‑1969 were conveyed, vide letter, dated 25‑4‑1982. The adverse remarks for the year 1969 were expunged vide letter, dated 26‑5‑1982 of Director, Technical Education, Punjab, Lahore and for the year 1964‑1965, the appellant was informed, vide letter, dated 4‑7‑1982 of the Director, Technical Education, Punjab, Lahore that no action is required for these adverse remarks according to the instructions on the subject.

We have enquired from the learned Deputy District Attorney and the representative of the Department who appeared on behalf of the respondent on the date of hearing of the arguments of this case whether there were any other adverse remarks on record against the appellant except those mentioned and discussed above but they have submitted that there were no other adverse remarks on the record against the appellant.

8. The adverse remarks on the basis of which the appellant was superseded have either been expunged or no action is required to be taken for such remarks according to the instructions on the subject as intimated to the appellant by the competent authority. Thus, the result which emerges out of the above history of the case is that no adverse remarks against the appellant stands at present. Therefore, the policy of the Government of the Punjab (S&GAID) as contained in para. 4 (iii) of the Circular letter, dated 16‑10‑1973 mentioned in para. 7 of this judgment is fully applicable in this case. We are also fortified in this view .on the basis of our previous judgment reported as 1984 PLC (C.S.) 213, Ch. Muhammad Aslam v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department and 4 others decided on 15‑11‑1976. In that case also a direction was given to the Government to consider the case of that appellant on the expunction of the adverse remarks on the basis of the aforesaid policy letter, dated 16‑10‑1973.

9. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is accepted and the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore is directed to consider the case of the appellant for pro forma promotion as Senior Instructor, with effect from 1‑6‑1982, the date from which his junior colleagues were promoted as Senior Instructors, vide order, dated 19‑9‑1982 of the respondent.

There are no order as‑ to costs.

A.E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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