| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 373 2022 SLD 373 2022 PLC 1 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 1557 and 1569 of 2017, decision dated: 24-01-2018. hearing date: 24-01-2018. (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 14.02.2017 passed by Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat in W.P. No. 500-M of 2016 and W.P. No.
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE
Qazi Jawwad Ehsanullah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in both cases). Nemo for
Respondent No. 1 (in both cases). Abdul Latif Yousafzai, A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for
Respondent No. 2 (in both cases). Alamgir
Civil Petitions Nos. 1557 and 1569 of 2017, decision dated: 24-01-2018. hearing date: 24-01-2018. (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 14.02.2017 passed by Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat in W.P. No. 500-M of 2016 and W.P. No.
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE
Qazi Jawwad Ehsanullah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in both cases). Nemo for
Respondent No. 1 (in both cases). Abdul Latif Yousafzai, A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for
Respondent No. 2 (in both cases). Alamgir
GUL ROZ
VS
THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY SAFRON AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Civil service--- ----Interim order /suspension order suspending promotion to next rank---Scope and effect---Suspension order was neither a final adjudication about the validity of a promotion order nor it tantamount to its reversal. Petitioner who served as Subedar, Levies was promoted to rank of Subedar Major. However due to an interim order passed by the High Court, the petitioner’s promotion was suspended. The whole controversy in the present case turned on the effect of the interim order of the High Court. That order did not validate or reverse the promotion of the petitioner; it merely postponed the implementation of the said promotion order. The mere fact that the promotion order of the petitioner was suspended, did not mean that he had been demoted or reverted or that the order had been cancelled. The continuance of the petitioner in the rank of Subedar on account of the interim order did not count towards his substantive tenure in that post but was merely a consequence of the interim order. Therefore, such service could not count towards the exhaustion of his tenure as Subedar for the purpose of retirement. In the circumstances of the present case the tenurial criterion could not be the determining factor for fixing the date of retirement of the petitioner. This was because such criterion for retirement was rendered superfluous due to the interim order passed in pending litigation. Rather than implementing the promotion order of the petitioner as Subedar Major or taking other proceedings in relation thereto, the Commandant wrongly presumed that the petitioner was ineligible for that post. Hence he directed the said post of Subedar Major to be officiated by a junior officer and recalled the petitioner to the Levies Lines pending his retirement. Said approach was wrong on the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. Accordingly, the promotion order of the petitioner merited implementation in accordance with law and the criteria laid down in the relevant service rules. Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed accordingly. ORDER: UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE:---.--- These two petitions filed by Gul Roz challenge two…
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