1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
through Secretary Education and another Versus Rana GHULAM SARWAR KHAN and 111 others
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ |
| Parties | through Secretary Education and another Versus Rana GHULAM SARWAR KHAN and 111 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (through Secretary Education and another Versus Rana GHULAM SARWAR KHAN and 111 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nasim Kashmiri, Addl. A.‑G. Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal; from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby it allowed the appeal of the respondents and directed against Government to allow BPS‑18 to them with effect from 1‑9‑1990.
2. There were 12092 posts in the College Teachers Cadre (General). The Provincial Government decided to introduce a 4‑tier structure for the college teachers and with that object it classified the posts in the ratio of 1:15:34:50 into a four‑tiers, namely, BPS‑20, 19, 18 and 17, respectively. The relevant notification was issued on 1‑9‑1990. , Thereafter the functionaries in the Education Department took two years to make the appointments in accordance with the above ratio. This exercise held up the promotions of the respondents to Grade‑19 till 1992. They represented to the Government that as vacancies in BPS‑19 were available on 1‑9‑1990 when the notification in question was issued they should have been promoted from that date. Their representation was rejected by the Government whereupon they filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted their appeal and directed the Government to promote them with effect from 1‑9‑1990. The Government seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
3. On behalf of the Government it is contended that no civil servant has a right to claim that he should be promoted from a back date even though a vacancy may be existing on the date from which the promotion in being claimed. This is no doubt true but here there are no orders by the Government that the respondents/petitioners should be held up for some time. The delay in making the promotions occurred entirely due to the reason that the officials of the Education Department could not carry out a fairly simple exercise within a reasonable period. In the circumstances it will not be appropriate for this C.Ps. to interfere with the order of Service Tribunal. Leave is refused. A.A./G‑566/S Leave refused.