2011 PLC (C (PLP)

TARIQ PARVEZ, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 22-10-2009, passed by this court whereby Civil Petition No. 1164 of 2009 filed by him was dismissed.

2. Facts have been briefly stated in the opening para of the judgment under review but for ready reference, the petitioner was an officer in grade-19 in the Ministry of Education, Govt. of Pakistan. The Federal Government Employees Housing Scheme was floated for allotment of plots in Sector G-14 of Islamabad, wherein personnel serving in the Federal Government Departments were eligible to apply for the allotment of the plot for different categories but on the basis of their holding position in a particular BPS.

3. Cut-off date for filing of applications for allotment of plots of various categories was 15-11-2003. The petitioner on the basis of basic pay scale on or before 15-11-2003 was not eligible to apply for plot in Category-I, did apply, which was not considered, followed by his filing another application for allotment in Category-IP.

4. It so happened that the promotion case of the petitioner was pending on or before 15-11-2003 (cut-off date for making application for allotment of plot). He was, however, promoted to BPS-20 vide notification dated 20-11-2003 i.e. five days after the cut-off date.

5. This Court while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner by means of judgment under review observed as under:-- "

7. Official status of an employee is to be determined on the basis of his holding of position but permanently. Where official was working on ad hoc basis or on, current charge basis, that is an administrative arrangement/ adjustment in the department and it does not confer any legal right on the incumbent. If one was to proceed on the assumption that person on current charge basis for all legal intent to be taken at par with a regular incumbent then there would be no need for undergoing the process of preparing the case of current charge basis officer by preparing summary of his promotion which is to be ultimately placed before the competent authority, in this case it was the Prime Minister of Pakistan who may either accept or reject the proposal for promotion."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the approval of the Prime Minister of Pakistan for the promotion of the petitioner was dated 13-11-2003 and the issuance of notification was a mere ministerial procedural formality but for all legal intent and purposes, the petitioner became a grade-20 officer the moment his promotion was approved by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, who was the competent authority, which approval was made on 13-11-2003.

7. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Ahmad Latif Qureshi v. Controller of Examination (PLD 1994 Lahore 3), Director Social Welfare N.-W.F.P. v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 1350), Government of the Punjab v. Ghulam Sarwar Khan (1997 SCMR 515), Saghir Ahmad v. Province of Punjab (PLD 2004 SC 261) and Abdur Rehman Shaukat v. Muhammad Akram Javed (PLD 2004 Lahore 815), which have been gone through and some of them are on the proposition that no person shall be penalized for the inaction of the functionaries. It was argued that if the notification of the petitioner was delayed till 20-11-2003, it was fault on the part of the department and for their fault, the petitioner cannot be penalized and that his application for allotment of Category-I plot should have been entertained.

8. Learned counsel has also submitted that in Esta Code (Edition 2007), Vol. 1 at page 190, Sr. No.117, it is required that when a person is holding a current charge post, a proposal for regular appointment should be initiated and referred to Central Selection Board within a month and finalized within six months. His submission was that the petitioner was holding current charge post for much longer period and if his promotion case was delayed, it was not his fault but of the functionaries in not following the codel formalities.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The codel formalities mentioned above are for the in-house working of a department and it does not create any right in favour of the civil servant and even if it does, it is for the purposes of his seniority etc. in a particular grade and the legal position would remain that he shall hold the same status which was held by him until his case was finally approved by the Central Selection Board and duly notified. In this case the notification was issued on 20-11-2003. For convenience the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Islamabad-November 25, 2003. NOTIFICATION No.F-3-1/2002-ADMN.1.

In pursuance of the Establishment Division's O.M. No.2/10/2003-CP-8, dated 20th November 2003 Dr. R.A. Siyal, Deputy. Educational Adviser (B-19) is promoted to the post of Joint Educational Adviser (B-20) in the Ministry of Education, Islamabad w.e.f. 20th November 2003. Sd/- (GHAYOOR SULTANA) SECTION OFFICER." The above notification is very clear and specific to determine the status of the petitioner, which states that his promotion to BPS-20 is w.e.f. 20-11-2003 i.e. until such date he was in BPS-19, as such was neither entitled nor eligible to apply for the plot in Category-I.

10. No factual or legal flaw has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the judgment under review. Even otherwise, all the arguments have been adequately addressed to in the judgment under review.

11. For the foregoing reasons, we find no force in this petition; the same is dismissed accordingly. M.W.A./R-3/SC Petition dismissed.