Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 1834 2022 SLD 1834 2022 PLJ 119
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Appeal No. 452(P)CS of 2021, decision dated: 28.6.2022. hearing date: 27.6.2022.
ASIM AKRAM AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, JADOON, MEMBERS
Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Bhutta, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Anwar Mughal, Advocate for
Respondents.

ASHRAF ALI SHAH

VS

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue Islamabad and others

Law: Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Section: 4

Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973)-- ----S. 4--Proforma promotion after retirement--Refusal of--Seniority list--Eligibility of appellant--Delay in filing appeal--No junior of appellant has been promoted to high grade before his retirement--The departmental appeal filed by appellant’ after retirement for grant of proforma promotion in higher grade was considered by Junior Level Committee of FR-17(1), The Committee disagree with appellant’s stance and decision was communicated to him--The appellant was filed instant appeal in year, 2021 after a lapse of almost three years--The counsel for appellant has not been able to explain such delay in filing instant appeal after his retirement--Stance taken by Junior Level Committee of FR-17(1) while considering proforma promotion of appellant is in line and length of guidelines of FR-17(1) Committee--Appeal dismissed. 2006 SCMR 1324, PLD 2003 SC 110, 2008 SCMR 663 and2006 PLC (CS) 1034 ref. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Bhutta, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Anwar Mughal, Advocate for Respondents. hearing date: 27.6.2022. JUDGMENT ASIM AKRAM, MEMBER.--Through the appeal at hand the appellant has challenged the order dated 17.09.2020 whereby the appellant’s appeal for grant of proforma promotion to BS-18 was refused. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was retired from service on 18.02.2019 upon attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement he filed an appeal for grant of proforma promotion to BS-18 on merit-cum-fitness basis. In the departmental appeal the appellant has stated that after his retirement two DPCs meeting were held in the year, 2019 in which certain officers were considered for promotion to BS-18. The appellant alleges that the vacancy in BS-18 existed prior to his retirement so he should be given proforma promotion. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the post/vacancy in BS-18 existed before the retirement of the appellant and any delay in convening the DPC during his service was not the fault of the appellant. As per memo. of appeal, the appellant has already applied to the competent authority for promotion to the next higher grade through departmental…
🔒
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