2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JUSTICE (R) TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).

This judgment shall decide the above mentioned two appeals as common questions of law and facts are involved in the appeals.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant Abdul Qayyum Mirza joined F.G. service on 4-10-1965 as Junior Teacher. He was promoted to the post of Principal (BS-19) w.e.f. 16-11-1998. Vide Notification dated 15-9-2003, the appellant was posted against a vacant post of Principal (BS-20) where he worked as such till 16-11-2003 when he retired from service on account of superannuation.

3. The Central Selection Board had considered the case of the appellant as well as some other Principals (BS-19) for promotion on regular basis to the post of Principal (BS-20) and recommended them for promotion in the following order of merit:-- S. No Name

1. Mr. Gulzar Ahmed Asghar

2. Mr. Abdul Qayyum Mirza

3. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal

4. Mr. Muhammad Anwar

4. Appellant Muhammad Anwar joined F.G. service on 17-8-1974 as Trained Graduate Teacher. He was promoted to the post of Principal (BS-19) w.e.f. 15-10-2001.

5. The Central Selection Board had recommended the case of the appellant as well as some other Principals (BS-19) for promotion to the post of Principal (BS-20) as under:

S. No Name 1. Mr. Gulzar Ahmed Asghar 2. Mr. Abdul Qayyum Mirza 3. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal 4. Mr. Muhammad Anwar 6. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that while appellant Abdul Qayyum Mirza retired on 16-11-2003, Muhammad Anwar appellant reached the age of superannuation on 9-10-2003. Although the recommendation of Central Selection Board in favour of the appellants was made in its meeting held on 30-8-2003, the summary for approval of the promotion of the appellants by the Prime Minister was forwarded by the Ministry of Education on 28-10-2003 while the Establishment Division sent the summary for approval of the Prime Minister on 4-11-2003. The summary of the Ministry of Education contained all the necessary documents of the appellants such as panel pro forma of each officer, ICP chart/C.R. dossiers, seniority list, certificate regarding availability of vacancy and certificate to the effect that no disciplinary action is pending against the officer concerned. 7. While making the aforementioned recommendation and soliciting the promotion of the appellants neither the Ministry of Education (respondent No.2) nor the Establishment Division (respondent No.3) indicated to the 'Prime Minister that the appellants were due to retire on 16-11-2003 and 9-10-2003 respectively. This according to appellants prejudiced the case of the appellants as the Prime Minister Secretariat failed to notice the urgency involved in the matter and approved the summary in respect of officers other than the appellants for the sole reasons that the appellants had already superannuated before the approval of the summary by the Prime Minister. 8. It is further submitted that apart from the failure of respondents Nos.2 and 3 to indicate the date of superannuation of the appellants, the said respondents also defaulted in submitting the summary with inordinate delay. It is pointed out that although the Central Selection Board had recommended the promotion of the appellants on 30-8-2003, it was on 28-10-2003 that the summary was forwarded by the Ministry of Education through the Secretary, Establishment Division who took another six days before the submission of the summary which was finally made on 4-11-2003. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the appellants were entitled to be promoted and would have been actually promoted before the superannuation had the matter been promptly dealt with by the respondents Nos.2 and 3. It is submitted that the appellants have been deprived for no fault of their own for rendering service in the higher post to which they are admittedly entitled and to be allowed the salary of the higher posts and corresponding pensionary benefits after their retirement from service. Reliance is placed on Syed Sultan Shah v. Government of Balochistan 1985 SCMR 1394, and 1995 SCMR 650 Walayat Ali Mir v. PIAC. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken by the respondents respectively in their parawise comments. It is not denied that the appellants were recommended for promotion to the post of Principal (BS-20) by the Central Selection Board on 30-8-2003. It is however, denied that any deliberate delay was caused either by respondent No.2 or respondent No.3 in forwarding the summary to the prime Minister's Secretariat. It is contended that when the impugned order of approval was passed by the Competent Authority the appellants had already superannuated and were thus not entitled to any relief as claimed. The respondent No.6 AGPR contends that as the appellants were never actually promoted to the posts of Principal (BS-20) no right to receive pay and allowances has accrued to the appellants. 11. Arguments have been heard and record perused. 12. It is established from the record that the Central Selection Board had recommended the appellants for promotion to, the post of Principal (BS-20). In fact one extra vacancy was suggested to promote Muhammad Anwar, appellant whose date of superannuation i.e. 9-10-2003 was acknowledged by the CSB. Appellant Abdul Qayyum Mirza was recommended for promotion at Sl. No.2 while Muhammad Anwar was recommended and placed at S. No.4. According to the record the date of superannuation of the appellants is 16-11-2003 and 9-10-2003 respectively. No justification is forthcoming from the record or froth submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents as to why the Ministry of Education (respondent No.2) submitted the summary to the Prime Minister's Secretariat on 28-10-2003 when the CSB had made their recommendation in respect of appellants on 30-8-2003. The delay of 58 days by respondent No.2 appears to be inexplicable. The same had the effect of seriously effecting the service prospects of appellants without any fault on their part. We are satisfied, keeping in view the ordinary course of business that the delay by respondent No.2 was unjustified. 13. We have further noticed that although one extra post was specifically recommended to accommodate Muhammad Anwar, appellant by the CSB keeping in view his date of superannuation viz. 9-10-2003, no effort was made either by the Ministry of Education or by the Establishment Division while submitting the summary to indicate the dates of superannuation. 14. The recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Central Selection Board are entitled to greatest respect and utmost consideration. Selection Board and Promotion Committees are in fact the substitutes for and an alternative to Public Service Commission. The sanctity of their recommendations is established. It is incumbent upon the concerned Ministry and the Establishment Division to transmit such advice and recommendations with alacrity and dispatch so that the advice is accepted quickly by the competent authority. If the Prime Minister or the Minister concerned does not agree with the recommendation, he shall return the same to the Board or the Committee for further advice and thereafter proceed accordingly. In all this process, the emphasis shall always be upon the promptness of action by all concerned. 15. It may further be kept in mind that promotion is the advancement of an official from a lower to a higher post or grade against a vacancy specifically reserved for such advancement under the relevant recruitment rules. Such advancement is the prime goal of an official during service. Where an employee is recommended for promotion and is also approaching superannuation, it is imperative for the concerned Ministry and the Establishment Division to make a specific endorsement upon the relevant summary regarding the impending date of superannuation. This is indeed necessary to emphasize urgency in the matter for the action of the competent authority. 16. There is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants cannot be deprived of the benefits of promotion if they have been ignored on account of a default of the concerned authorities. 17. Resultantly both the appeals are allowed, the appellants right to promotion to the post of Principal (BS-20) is accepted and the appellants shall be entitled to all the benefits which would have accrued to them in ease they had been promoted in accordance with the recommendations of CSB prior to superannuation. 18. No order as to costs. 19. Parties be informed accordingly. H.B.T./37/FST Appeal allowed.