2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks promotion w.e.f. 1-1-1992.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he worked as a clerk-cum-typist with the National Bank of Pakistan. He was entitled to promotion as Grade-III officer w.e.f. 1-1-1992. However, he has been denied the said promotion for no justifiable reason. Learned counsel states that petitioner made several representations before the respondents. However, no positive action was taken by the respondents. It has also been stated that it is a case of discrimination against the petitioner because others have been promoted yet the petitioner has been denied his promotion.

3. Report and parawise comments have been filed by the respondents. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised the preliminary objection that the petition is grossly barred by laches. He argued that the petitioner was promoted on 5-1-2006 to Grade-III and never agitated this issue at that time. He further argued that the petitioner retired on 9-2-2008 and this fact has not been mentioned in the petition. Learned counsel argued that petitioner has sat on this issue since 2006 and brought it before this Court after more than five years. Further argued that there is no right to promotion after the retirement particularly when the petitioner was promoted and never agitated the issue at the relevant time.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was pursing his remedy before the competent forum and therefore, the instant writ petition was filed late.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.

6. The basic objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner seeks promotion from 1992, which is barred by laches. The record shows that the petitioner was promoted to Officer Grade-III on 5-1-2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this promotion was subject to a decision in some appeal. However, learned counsel for the respondents has denied that any such insertion was made on the said letter regarding any appeal. The petitioner accepted his promotion in 2006 without any objection. This issue has not been agitated since until the filing of the instant petition. Hence it is hit by laches. Furthermore, the petitioner retired on 9-2-2008 which fact he has not been disclosed in the petition. On this ground alone he is not entitled to the relief claimed. Even otherwise, the petitioner's case rests upon the letter dated 26-11-1992 wherein it is stated that in case he is promoted w.e.f. 1-1-1992 he will have to adjust three special increments that he has received in the pay scale. The letter does not promise any promotion from 1992, it simply suggests that the petitioner will have to refund the three special increments that he has received in case of his promotion form 1992. There is nothing on the record to substantiate his claim or even to show that the matter is pending. The record shows that the petitioner was told time and again that the issue is closed and that he has no claim. Now he admittedly stands retired w.e.f. 9-2-2008 and wants a promotion which he was repeatedly told he is not entitled to.

7. Under the circumstances, no case for interference is made out. Petition dismissed. MWA/K-24/L Petition dismissed.