1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GHULAM MOHY‑UD‑DIN Versus THE FA. & CA.O., PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and others
| Citation | 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Hasan Nawaz and Kh. Abdul Jalil, Members |
| Parties | GHULAM MOHY‑UD‑DIN Versus THE FA. & CA.O., PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Hasan Nawaz and Kh. Abdul Jalil, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM MOHY‑UD‑DIN Versus THE FA. & CA.O., PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saifullah Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Denial of promotion due to adverse entries in Annual Confidential Report‑‑Civil servant considered for promotion but same was declined because of presence of adverse remarks‑‑Competency of appeal‑‑Provisions of S. 4(1)(b) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 envisage that no appeal would lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of departmental Authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed or to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade‑‑Civil servant's such disability was in addition to the fact that he had faded to come to Tribunal within thirty days of communication of order rejecting his representation‑‑Appeal was dismissed as being incompetent and time‑barred. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).‑‑The request in the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is for a declaration that the appellant is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer.
2. It is pleaded that he was ignored for the first time in 1986 when certain other Inspectors (Coaching and Goods) Junior to him were promoted as Accounts Officers and that he was not considered fit for promotion probably because of adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Report pertaining to the period from 1‑1‑1981 to 31‑12‑1981. Thereafter, on subsequent occasions too, he was again ignored and other Inspectors were promoted to the aforementioned posts of Accounts Officers. He made representations against these promotions on 18‑10‑1986 and 10‑7‑1987, but these were turned down on the ground that no appeal/representation was competent.
3. It appears from his pleadings that he made further representations requesting ‑ that he may be promoted. He was also granted an interview by respondent No.2 on 15‑12‑1987 during which he was told that he is being ignored because of adverse entries in his ACR. Finally, he was informed by letter dated 20‑5‑1988 that his representation regarding promotion was not competent and that he could not challenge the order in respect of determination of his fitness to be promoted to a higher post.
4. It is thus clear that he was considered for promotion but disregarded by respondent No.2 because of the presence of adverse entries against him in his ACR. The appeal is, therefore, incompetent under Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which provides that no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade; which is in addition to the fact that he has failed to come to the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication of order on 20‑5 1988 rejecting his representation.
5. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed in limine as being incompetent and time7barred. AA./449/Sr.F Appeal dismissed,