1995 PLP 111 (PLC)
HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus QAMARUDDIN SIDDIQUI and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP 111 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus QAMARUDDIN SIDDIQUI and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 111 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 111 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 111 (PLC) (HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus QAMARUDDIN SIDDIQUI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Aslam Butt for Appellant.
- Abdul Majeed, Representative for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th October, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Employee who was employed as "Programmer" in Employer Corporation was senior to his co‑employee, but when a vacancy occurred in post of "Application Operation Officer" in Corporation, co‑employee despite being junior to employee was promoted to that post and that promotion was challenged by employee‑‑‑For granting promotion, a test was conducted in Corporation by a Firm of Chartered Accountants in which four Programmers including employee and co‑employee participated‑‑‑According to result of that test co‑employee stood first while employee got second position‑‑‑According to Regulations in employer Corporation criteria for promotion was that up to level of Assistants, promotion was to be granted on basis of seniority‑cum fitness while promotion to all other posts was to be made by selection on ground of merit‑‑‑Programmers who were not Assistants, but were holding post higher to Assistants, their promotion was to be made on basis of merit according to Regln. 16 of Regulations of Corporation ‑‑‑Co‑employee who got first position in test was rightly promoted despite his juniority to employee.
Judgment & Decree
Irfan Ahmed Khan 45 32 77 Qamaruddin Siddiqui 35 19 54 Raziuddin Khan 12 10 22 Shahzad Sultan 0 12 12 This will clearly show that the performance of Irfan Ahmed was far superior to that of the other three candidates.
7. On the receipt of these results from the Chartered Accountants a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for the promotion of officers/staff of the E.D.P. Department of Finance Division consisting of Mrs. Saleem Ahmed, Executive Director (OPS) Abdul Moid Khan, Executive Director, Finance and the Secretary Mrs. Shahnaz S. Hamid, General Manager (PNT) was held on the 31st of January, 1993 and a number of candidates from different sections were recommended for promotion on merit, in accordance with the criteria laid down under General Rules of Promotion read with Regulations 16 of the HBFC Service Regulations. Irfan Ahmed was recommended for promotion to the post of the Application Officer Grade II. As a result of this Irfan Ahmed was promoted as Application Operation Officer, EDP Department per Office Order No. 204, dated 15‑ Z‑1993.
8. Promotion in the Corporation are governed by Regulation 16 which reads as under:‑ "
16. Promotion.‑‑All promotions to posts up to the rank of Assistants shall be made on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness. Promotions to all other posts shall be made by selection on grounds of merit. No employee shall have a claim to be promoted to any particular post or grade by virtue of seniority alone. Should an employee officiating in a higher post show signs of deterioration while he is so officiating, he shall be liable to immediate and summary reversion to the grade of his previous appointment, not withstanding the provision contained in Regulation 26."
9. There is no dispute that the parties here were holding a post higher to i that of the Assistants. The criteria laid down for promotion up to the level of the Assistants is on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness while the promotion to all other posts "shall be by selection on grounds of merit". It is true that the respondent had performed well on his post as a programmer and was also the recipient of Certificates of Appreciation of the work done by him. But as Irfan Ahmed Khan was not a party to the proceedings we do not know what he could prove about his performance and achievement. Any way there was a test which had been conducted by a firm of Chartered Accountants from Karachi. All the four programmers had participated therein and the results speak for themselves. It was not only the respondent who could have any grievance if at all against the promotion. There was Shahzad Sultan who was above him. Since Shahzad Sultan was not made a party in the proceedings so we know nothing about What was his ACR. According to the Regulation seniority is not the only criteria. It is merit alone and the merit was determined by a reputed firm of Chartered Accountants. There is no challenge to the authenticity of the results and there is nothing in breach of the Statutory Regulations. Under the circumstances the promotion of Irfan Ahmed Khan was beyond any challenge. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. H.B.T./2379/Lb.S Appeal allowed.