2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Mian Muzaffar Hussain for Legal Advisor for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th November, 2001 Through this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents Nos. l to 3 to promote the petitioner as Assistant Director (Engineering) from the date when his juniors i.e. respondents Nos.4 and 5 were promoted alongwith all monetary and other benefits. It is further prayed that the seniority list may be maintained of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as Sub‑Engineer with the Lahore Municipal Corporation on 12‑6‑1974. His services, however, were transferred to Lahore Development Authority on 28‑5‑1976 on the same terms and conditions and ‑the petitioner was permanently absorbed in the LDA w.e.f. 1‑10‑1976. The seniority list was not correctly maintained by respondents Nos. l to

3. The petitioner filed a representation/appeal and vide order, dated 15‑5‑1996 the petitioner's seniority was restored and he was granted selection grade vide order, dated 9‑6‑1986 w.e.f 9‑10‑1986. The petitioner was directed to perform his duties as Assistant Director (Engineering) before the grant of selection grade in his own pay and scale. This direction was issued in the month of July, 1995 and at the time of correction of his seniority and grant of selection grade he was performing the duties of Assistant Director (Engineering). The petitioner moved an application to respondent No.3 for the redressal of his grievance and for his regular promotion as Assistant Director (Engineering). His case was recommended to D.P.C. but his case was never considered by the D.P.C. The claim of the petitioner is that according to the seniority list he is at No. l and respondent No.3 on the application of the petitioner directed for the creation of a post of Assistant Director vide order, dated 26‑12‑1996 and that the petitioner may be regularized as Assistant Director on the said post. The matter was brought before the D.P.C. but the petitioner was not promoted on the excuse that the post cannot be created as no budgetary sanction is available for the creation of the post and for the payment of the salaries and other benefits to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Assistant Director as he is serving on the said post for the last so many years in his own pay and scale, and respondent No.4 is juniors to the petitioner and he has been selected and promoted as such. The petitioner is entitled to the promotion from the due date.

4. Comments were called for from the L.D.A. in which the stand has been taken by it that the petitioner could not be promoted as he was granted Selection Grade in BS‑16 w.e.f. 9‑10‑1986 vide office order, dated 9‑6‑1996. In the meanwhile respondent No.4 had already been selected and as there was no vacant post lying of Assistant Director hence the petitioner was not promoted on the same.

5. Learned Legal Advisor of the respondent L.D.A. has also opposed the ground that due to the non‑availability of the post the be promoted.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused record and the comments filed by the Department. Admittedly the petitioner has been promoted and has been granted Grade‑16 by the respondent vide order, dated 9‑6‑1996 w.e.f. 9‑10‑1986. The respondents were bound to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Asistant Director in Grade‑17 as in the seniority list he was at No. l but his case has not been considered on the lame excuse and even evasive reply has been filed by the L.D.A. to the extent that respondent No.4 has been promoted earlier but it has not been clearly denied that he was junior to the petitioner and has been promoted for the reason that till then the representation of the petitioner was not finalized and the petitioner was not allowed Grade‑16 when it was due to him on 9‑10‑1986 and it was granted to the petitioner on 9‑6‑1996, after about 10 years of the entitlement of the petitioner. The petitioner has not been treated by the respondents in accordance ‑with law and has been deprived of his due promotion by keeping his representation pending and by not giving him the seniority which was due to him for a period not less than 10 years. This is a very sad state of affairs, The respondents are treating their employees in such a manner in order to satisfy their ego but the employees are being deprived to their rights by keeping the matter pending for such a long period. I have no option except to accept this petition directing the respondents to re‑consider the case of the petitioner, if anybody junior to him has been promoted, after following the right procedure for the demotion of such person, who has been promoted instead of the petitioner due to the pendency of the representation of the petitioner, for his promotion with effect from due date. This shall be finalized within sixty days from the receipt of this order.

7. With this direction this petition is accepted with no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M./A/.K./G‑159/L Petition allowed.