2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.

The petitioner was Director (Finance) in WAPDA and was given acting charge of Deputy General Manager vide order dated 22-8-1998. Later vide order dated 15-10-1998 the petitioner was de-notified to his substantive post as Director (Finance). The petitioner claims that after de-notification he was allowed to continue as Deputy General Manager Finance (Treasury) on current charge basis till regularization by the competent authority. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Board for promotion, in its meeting held on 30-10-1998 alongwith the cases of his colleagues but due to the absence of Member (Finance) it was not taken up and later Member (Finance) on 2-11-1998 recommended in writing for consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion by circulation as he having fulfilled the requirements, was entitled to the next promotion but the needful was not done till the retirement of petitioner on 3-1-1999. Thereafter, vide order dated 9-3-1999, 20 officers of BPS-20 who had already been retired and before retirement were holding acting/current charge as General Manager, were given promotion as General Manager with effect from various dates ranging from 1994 to 1998. The petitioner who was holding acting/current charge and was also recommended for promotion by Member Finance for promotion through circulation, was not included in the list of above said officers. On failure of the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner, he filed an appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, before the Federal Service Tribunal wherein he challenged the order dated 15-10-1998 and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 24-10-2000. The petitioner through this petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner while holding acting charge and then on current basis was entitled to be considered for promotion alongwith other officers but unfortunately his case vas not taken up on the ground that Member (Finance) was not present in the meeting and subsequently his colleagues after retirement, were promoted from back dates and he was again deprived of promotion on the pretext that he already stood retired. The learned .counsel while placing reliance on Aslam Warraich v. Secretary Planning and Development Division (1991 SCMR 2330) and Walayat Ali Mir v. Pakistan International Airlines (1995 SCMR 650) has contended that the petitioner was discriminated and having been not dealt with fairly was deprived of his legitimate right of promotion and consequential benefits without any legal justification. Learned counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, while placing reliance on Ghulam Rasool v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 2002 SC 381) and Baber Gul v. Sohail Ahmed Sheikh (2000 SCMR 581) has contended that no question of public importance was involved in the present case for grant of leave. On merits of the case, the learned counsel has submitted that the relief claimed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was confined only to the extent of challenging the order dated 15-10-1998 by virtue of which he was de-notified and matter relating to the promotion was not in issue before the Tribunal, therefore, the petitioner cannot set up a new case before this Court. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner relating to the discrimination and unfair treatment which is floating on the record, are inclined to grant leave to examine the matter in detail. Order accordingly. S.A.K./M-594/S Leave granted.