2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

This appeal by leave of the Court has been filed against the judgment dated 6th May, 1999 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.206‑R of 1998. Leave granting order for convenience is reproduced herein-below:‑- "Submits that the adverse report was not communicated to him and that in view of the rule laid down in 1994 SCMR 544 and 1997 SCMR 1303 said adverse reports could not be handled for the grant of move-over. This point requires consideration in the light of the relevant rules and the laws laid down in the said two judgments. Leave is granted."

2. Appellant's claim of move‑over from B‑17 to B‑18 was declined in view of Finance Division's O.M. No.F.7(1)Imp.1/90‑Vol.II, dated 7th February, 1991 which has laid criteria for promotion to next grade at least two good A.C.Rs. for two years whereas appellant could earn one good and other average A.C.R., therefore, he was ignored for move over from B‑17 to B‑

18. Appeal filed by him before the Service Tribunal failed as such leave to appeal was granted to examine the question noted in the leave granting order.

3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the average report can be treated as good for the purpose of move‑over in view of the law laid down by this Court in the judgments reported as Muhammad Anwar v. The Secretary Establishment Division Rawalpindi and 2 others PLD 1992 SC 144, Federation of Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Qaisar Hayat Khan 1994 SCMR 544; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Health Division v. Dr. Najmul Ghani Khan PLD 1995 SC 556 and Pakistan Broadcasting Co. through D.G. HQs. and another v. Nasiruddin 1997 SCMR 1303, therefore, according to him he has been wrongly refused move‑over from B‑17 to B‑18.

4. On the other hand learned Deputy Attorney‑General on behalf of respondents contended that the policy contained in O.M. dated 7th July, 1991 is required to be fulfilled strictly and as appellant failed to earn two good A.C.Rs./reports, therefore, his claim for move‑over was rightly declined. To substantiate her plea she relied upon the case of Rana Manzoor‑ul‑Hassan v. Secretary, M/o Education, Islamabad and others 1995 SCMR 8.

5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the relevant O.M. as well as judgments relied upon by the parties counsel. In this behalf in the case of Muhammad Anwar (ibid) after having taken into consideration the relevant O.M. while dealing with the case of move‑over of the appellant it was held as follows:‑‑ "However, even with regard to the reasoning in the impugned judgment relating to the connotation of expression "generally good" that should be equated with the technical "good" the prefixing of the word "generally" itself its technical extreme. It would not be expected in case of "generally good" that the civil servant should get formally "good" reports. If there is no adverse report against him and he gets "average reports" they would have to be treated as "generally good" for purpose of move‑over. Because a report "average" cannot be treated as adverse unless specifically so treated and then conveyed to the civil servant as an adverse report. Notwithstanding the grading regarding the average in other aspects of civil service, in the context of move‑over expression "generally good" would amongst others, apply to mix sort of reports containing good and average reports. Thus, in the case of the appellant he had earned also three average reports. The effect of all these reports was "generally good" reports." The above view has been consistently followed in the other judgments which has been relied upon on behalf of the appellant's counsel. We fe81 no hesitation in holding that for the purpose of move‑over an average A.C.R. can be treated generally as "good". As far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents is concerned it is distinguishable on the facts, therefore, need not to be discussed. Thus, for the foregoing reasons appeal is allowed, impugned judgment is set aside. Respondent‑Department is directed to grant move -over to appellant from B‑17 to B‑18 from the date when it was due to him. No order as to costs. M. H./M‑231/S Appeal allowed.