2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. Aslam Uns, Federal Counsel for Respondents Date of hearing: 10th April, 1998. MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑The brief facts of the case leading to institution of the present appeal are that the Government of Pakistan, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad, approved Four‑Tier Formula in respect of Teaching Staff of the Government Colleges w.e.f. 1‑5‑1993 by notification, dated 16‑12‑1993, with condition at para. 4 thereof that it will be effective from the date of the upgraded posts actually filled in by eligible persons in the higher pay scales. While acting on the aforesaid Four‑Tier Formula the said Division was pleased, with approval of the competent Authority, to approve grant of BP‑18 to the appellant inclusive of similar 24 others out of whom the present appellant feeling aggrieved filed a representation to' the authority concerned and after rejection of the departmental appeal approached this Tribunal for availing the requisite legal remedy. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

2. It was stated at the bar by the learned counsel four the appellant that approval to the Four‑Tier Formula was accorded on 16‑12‑1993 effective from 1‑5‑1993 and as such prayed that the appointment of the appellant in BP‑18 may be ante‑dated w.e.f. 1‑5‑1993 instead of 14‑3‑1997 (the date of notification being 28‑3‑1996 and in support of his view point placed reliance on judgment, dated 20‑12‑1995; by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan whereby in an identical circumstances, appeal preferred by the Government of Punjab against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, was dismissed. It is further to observe that the aforesaid Service Tribunal had anti‑dated appointment of the officer of the Education Department from 1992 to 1‑9‑1990. A copy of the Punjab Service Tribunal's Judgment has not been placed on file.

3. Reverting to discussion of the present appeal, it is to observe that sanction to Four‑Tier formula in respect of teaching staff was accorded from 1‑5‑1993 as per notification, dated 16‑12‑1993, but it is just to mention that the relevant Rules could not be framed earlier than 28‑3‑1996, a copy of which is available on the file. These were made under rule 3(2) of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 regarding method of appointment, qualification, experience, age limits and other conditions for appointment to the posts in the Northern Areas Colleges working under the administrative control of the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division. The said Division was not alone competent to frame and promulgate these Rules as laid down under the law. It had to do so in consultation and assistance of other concerned departments including Establishment Division and as such in the absence of these Rules the appointments under the Four‑Tier formula could not be made earlier than the date of promulgation of these rules i.e. 28‑3‑1996. In view of the hard facts and special circumstances of the case, it does not appear just and proper to ante‑date the promotion w.e.f. 1‑5‑1993 for the reason that enactment of the Rules on the subject required time duly warranted by the principle:‑‑‑-- The departments are required to perform other activities of urgent matters inclusive of promotion cases of their servants. The Honourable Supreme Court's judgment relied upon is distinguishable in the sense that the delay in the cited case occurred in the process of the promotion whereas in the instant case reason was absence of the concerned 'Rules' referred to above which handicapped the Government in processing the promotion of the appellant and 28 others.

4. In view of the facts and peculiar circumstances as briefly discussed above, the prayer in the appeal regarding ante‑dation of the appointment with effect from 1‑5‑1993 instead of 14‑3‑1997 is not acceded 8 to. However, the same is anti‑dated with effect from the date of notification of the Rules i.e. 28‑3‑1998. This appeal is disposed of with no orders as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly H.B.T./29/Sr/F ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed