2023 PLP 58 (PLC)

NOOR ZAMAN, MEMBER.

Petitioners have contended that they are regular employees of the respondent and were promoted to next grades on 27.07.2016 after approval of competent authority. That after promotion order dated 27.07.2016, they joined the respective promoted posts and their salaries were accordingly fixed in next grades and paid from 27-07-2016 to 31-08-2016. That however, after 35 days they were reverted on 08.09.2016. Being aggrieved of the reversion order, the petitioner served grievance notice on respondent and having no response these petitions. 2 On notice the respondent contended that the DPC had Promoted certain persons including the petitioners without completion of length of service for the next grade and therefore on a complaint the authority after confirmation these discrepancies cancelled promotions.

3. The case were fixed on evidence, the petitioners tendered affidavits and were cross-examined by respondent. Mr.Abdul Nasir Deputy Secretary PCP appeared as RW and concluded evidence on 18.02.2020.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that competent DPC was held and recommended promotion of petitioners which recommendations were approved by the MD and formal promotion orders were issued. That the successor MD without reason and enquiry and giving opportunity of defence to the petitioners reverted them to lower post, which is punishment. That the complaint on basis of which the petitioners have been reverted was found frivolous and unfounded.

5. Learned counsel for respondent contended that on the proposal of Ex-Secretary, PCP (Mr.Ehsan-ul-Haq), the Managing Director PCP, approved constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee (CPC) comprising Mr. Ehsan-ul-Haq, Ex-Secretary, PCP (B-19)/Chairman. Mr. Muhammad Rafique, Manager (M&R) (B-18)/Member, Mr. Mehmood Ahmad, Assistant Accounts Officer (B-17) Member and Mr. Hameed Akhtar, Assistant Manager (Production) (B-16)/Member. In the light of recommendations of the committee various employees in BS-1 to BS-18 were promoted. Subsequently, a complaint was received against these promotions. The Managing Director, PCP decided to probe the matter and constituted a committee to re-examine all the promotions keeping in view PCP Employee's Service Rules. The committee placed its report before competent authority. The findings showed that promotions were made in derogation of PCP Employees Service Rules, 1977 ignoring the criteria, length of service, eligibility, availability of posts etc. That in the light of the report of the committee, the Managing Director reviewed his earlier decision and withdrew promotions which were made against the criteria as given in PCP Service Rules, 1977.

6. Arguments of both parties heard.

7. Arguments of parties and perusal of record on file reveal that main controversy in the case is the length of service of employees including petitioners who were considered and recommended by allegedly incompetent DPC for promotion. A complaint received in the respondent establishment highlighted discrepancies in the promotions and the competent authority reconsidered the case and found that some employees had not completed length of service required for promotion to next scale, while other were promoted against non-existent posts and the DPC had ignored these deficiencies. It is an established position that the promotion of an employee takes place after fulfillment of basic requirements of length of service, ACRS, availability of vacancies etc. However, in the instant case the following discrepancies were pointed out:- S.No. Name of petitioner Promoted from-to Required Length of service Actual Length of service Shortage

1. Syed Tahir Hussain Sr. Account Clerk BS-9 to Accounts Assistant (BS-14) 07 04 03

2. Shahzada Hussain -do- 07 03 04

3. Intazar Hussain Naib Qasid (BS-02) to Dispatch Rider (BS-04) As per PCP Employees Rules, 1977 the post of D.R is to be filled in through direct recruitment not by promotion.

4. Syed Shahid Hussain LDC (BS-7) to UDC (BS-09) 04 Incomplete ACR dossier

5. Zameer Hussain -do- 04 The petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC which became vacant due to illegal promotion of a UDC to the post of Assistant

6. Amjad Ejaz UDC (BS-9) to Assistant BS-14 05 03 02 The above table shows that the petitioners at Sr. Nos.1, 2 and 6 had not completed the required length of service, Dispatch Rider is 100% direct post and Naib Qasid is not eligible for promotion to the post of Dispatch Rider, hence, the promotion at Sr. No.3 is not valid promotion. Petitioner at Sr.No.4 of the table was promoted notwithstanding incomplete ACR dossier, while petitioner at Sr. No.5 was promoted against a post of UDC, which incumbent Sr. No.6 was illegally promoted hence, the post was not vacant. The DPC recommended these promotions illegally. Minimum length of service required for promotion to certain post is sina qua non for consideration for promotion. The Hon'ble Peshawar High Court in 2014 PLC (C.S.) 982, laid down that the rules of each department, enumerate a specific length of service and qualification for getting a higher post or grade. That lacking any pre-requisite for ascending to the higher post shall disqualify a civil servant. It is an established maxim that when the doing of anything in a particular manner is sanctioned by law, that thing cannot be done in a different way. Therefore in the interest of justice best course is that: (i) The promotion of petitioners at Sr. Nos.1, 2, 6 whose length of service was short, be actualized from the date on which their length of service is completed for promotion. (ii) Promotion of petitioner at Sr. No.4 be actualized from the date of DPC if his ACR for the period upto date of DPC are not adverse. (iii) Promotion of petitioner at Sr.No.5 be actualized from the date of actual availability of vacancy of UDC. (iv) Promotion of petitioner at Sr. No.3 may be regularized by including the post of DR in line of promotion of Naib Qasid.

8. In above terms the petition is disposed of. SA/3/NIRC Order accordingly.