1997 PLP 515 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Education and another ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Rana GHULAM SARWAR KHAN and 111 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 515 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Education and another ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Rana GHULAM SARWAR KHAN and 111 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 515 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 515 (SCMR)?
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 515 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Education and another ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Rana GHULAM SARWAR KHAN and 111 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasim Kashmiri, Additional Advocate‑General Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 19‑2‑1995 in Appeal No.494 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Entitlement to B.P.S. 19‑‑‑Civil servants' claim that vacancies in B.P.S. 19 being available on specified date they should have been promoted from that date, was rejected by Departmental Authority‑‑‑Service Tribunal, however, directed Government to promote civil servants with effect from specified date‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Government's claim that no civil servant had right to claim that he should be promoted from back date even though vacancy was available on that date for which promotion was being claimed was although true, yet there were no orders of Government that civil servant's promotion be held up for some time‑‑‑Delay in making promotion had occurred entirely due to reason that officers of that department could not carry out fairly simple exercise within reasonable period‑‑‑Judgment of Service Tribunal directing Government to promote civil servants from specified date would not warrant interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
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 the Government to allow B.P.S.‑19 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 in the four‑tiers, namely, B.P.S.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 B. P.S.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 is being claimed. This is no doubt true but here there are no orders by the Government that the respondents should be held up for sometime. 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 the Court to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. Leave is refused. A.A./G‑566/S Leave refused.