2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).

Appellant is Sub-Inspector police. He feels aggrieved by the orders dated 16-4-2005 vide which his representation for confirmation and admission to List "E" from the date of his temporary/ad hoc promotion i.e. 24-7-1989 was rejected. After having exhausted departmental remedy, he has filed present appeal in this Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that it was now settled law that police officials/officers in subordinate cadres were to be allowed confirmation/regular promotion from dates of their temporary promotion. Appellant had been promoted as A.S.-I. on 24-7-1989 on ad hoc basis, but he was confirmed as A.S.-I. and admitted to List "E" w.e.f. 1-10-1991. On the other hand, private respondents Nos.3 to 9 who had been inducted and promoted as A.S.-I. from latter dates i.e. in January and February 1990, they were confirmed as A.S.-I. and admitted to List "E" from respective dates of their induction/promotion as such in January and February, 1990. It is pointed out that as per many judgments of this Tribunal as upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, there was no concept of ad hoc promotion in Police Rules. Therefore, ad hoc promotion of the appellant as A.S.-I. had to be considered as officiating promotion. Moreover, the appellant had also qualified. Intermediate Class Course in due course of time. It is further stated that as per Rules 13.18 of Police Rules, confirmation was not linked with passing of Intermediate Class Course etc. and that this view had been expressed by this Tribunal in many judgments including latest judgment dated 4-4-2006 in Appeal No.1056 of 2005 (Muhammad Tariq son of Daulat Khan, A.S.-I. v. I.G.P. and another). It is next stated that there was no reason available with the concerned respondents to deny the appellant confirmation from due date and admission to List "E" from the date it was due and that representation of the appellant had been rejected arbitrarily without any rationale.

3. Official respondents Nos.l and 2 have opposed the appeal. However, private respondents Nos.3 to 9, to whom repeated notices were sent to submit written objections, have not come forward to file any replies. The said respondents are, therefore, proceeded ex parte

4. It is maintained by official respondents that the appellant was originally appointed as ad hoc A.S.-I. on 24-7-1989 and that when he qualified Intermediate Class Course in September 1991, he was confirmed as A.S.-I. and the appellant was then admitted to List "E" w.e.f. 1-10-1991. It is next maintained that the appellant remained working on ad hoc basis as A.S.-I. till 23-1-1992 and during this period he qualified Intermediate Class Course. It is also pointed out that the appellant could not be considered as regular A.S.-I. when he was working on ad hoc basis and that representation of the appellant had been rejected by the competent authority, in accordance with law.

5. I have considered contentions from both sides and also gone through the relevant record as made available. Departmental Representative was asked to address the query whether the representation of the appellant for confirmation from the date he was promoted as A.S.-I., was rejected on the ground that he was working on ad hoc basis or on the ground that he had not qualified the Intermediate Class Course, he had no satisfactory reply. I find that as per Police Rule 13.18, there was attached no condition for passing of Intermediate Class Course for the purpose of confirmation as A.S.-I. As far plea of the respondents that the appellant was working on ad hoc basis till 23-1-1992, I find that this plea defeats their action vide which the appellant was confirmed as A.S.-I. w.e.f.1-10-1991. If the appellant was not to be confirmed being on ad hoc basis, then he should not have been confirmed as A.S.-I. till 23-1-1992. This means ad hoc promotion of the appellant was not considered as an obstacle by the respondents themselves for his 'confirmation. Moreover, the I.G.P. has also issued A circular instructions according to which ad hoc promotion was to be considered as officiating promotion there being no concept of ad hoc , promotion in Police Rules. I agree with learned counsel for the appellant that as per consistent view of this Tribunal, the appellant was to be confirmed from the date he was inducted/promoted as A.S.-I. irrespective of the fact whether this promotion was considered officiating or ad hoc if his work and conduct remained satisfactory during next two years after promotion. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, appeal is accepted and case is remanded to the concerned authority for reconsideration of the case of the appellant for confirmation from the date he was promoted as A.S.-I. subject to the condition that his service record during two years following date of promotion had been satisfactory. H.B.T./40/PST Case remanded.