Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 2695 2021 SLD 2695 2021 SCMR 1266
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2021, decision dated: 8th June, 2021, hearing date: 8th June, 2021. (Against the judgments dated 12.09.2019, passed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar in Appeal No. 625 of 2018)
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Asad ud Din, Asif Jan, Superintendents and Javaid Maqbool Butt, Incharge Litigation, Agriculture Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Appellants. Fazal Shah Mohmand, Advocate Supreme Co

SECRETARY AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK AND COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS

VS

ANEES AHMAD

Law:

Section:

Civil service--- ----Pro forma promotion, who was otherwise eligible for promotion, was not promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), as it adjourned its meeting to a later date, by which time the respondent had retired---Held, that respondent had completed the requisite years of service provided by the promotion rules and the relevant official had also certified that there was no impediment in grant of promotion to him---Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for considering promotion was held on 19-06-2017 but was adjourned on the pretext that fresh option of officials forgoing their promotion be obtained---After adjourning of the meeting by DPC, the next meeting took place on 19-10-2017, but in the meantime, the respondent had retired from service on 21-06-2017---Due to the department’s own non-vigilance and the DPC being insensitive to the employees who were on the verge of retirement, the department could not simply brush aside the case of an employee by merely saying that he had retired---Once the case of respondent had matured for promotion while in service and was placed before the DPC before his retirement, it was incumbent upon the DPC to fairly, justly and honestly consider his case and then pass an order of granting promotion and in case it did not grant promotion, to give reasons for the same---Impugned of the Tribunal, directing the department to consider the case of promotion of respondent, did not suffer from any illegality---Appeal was dismissed. ORDER GULZAR AHMED, C.J.--- Facts of the matter are that the respondent was promoted to the post of Office Assistant (BPS-14) in the year 2004 and his post was up-graded to BPS-16 in the year 2014. The service rules were notified on 20.04.2012, providing 90% quota for promotion on seniority-cum-fitness basis among the holders of the posts of Assistant/Accountant, who have completed five years’ service. In the year 2013, post of Superintendent became vacant. The working-paper for promotion of the respondent was prepared where his name appeared at Serial No.2. The Departmental Promotion Committee (the DPC) was scheduled on 19.06.2017 but it was delayed to 19.10.2017. On 19.10.2017 the case…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492