2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SALIM GUL SHAIKH (MEMBER).

This appeal has been filed under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against the impugned order dated 31-1-2004 whereby officers junior to the appellant have been granted selection grade (BS-16). The appellant preferred departmental appeal dated 3-3-2004 which has remained undecided and hence this appeal has been filed before the Tribunal to seek redressal of grievance.

2. Briefly, the facts relevant to this appeal are that the appellant is an employee of the Military Engineering Services (MES) since 1976 and is presently working in GE (Navy) Service Karsaz, Karachi. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Engineer (E and M) Grade-1 on 30-9-2000 by the Engineer in Chief's Branch. He was denied move-over to the next grade after he had reached the maximum of his scale in BS-12 on the ground that his A.C.R. for the year 1997 contained adverse remarks. It appears that the appellant did not agitate this decision under the rules. In 2004 however, the respondents issued a circular dated 10-2-2004 notifying the names of officials who had been granted selection grade. The name of the appellant was missing from this list, while some of his junior colleagues were given the selection grade. The appellant preferred department appeal dated 3-3-2004 against this decision which has remained undecided. Thereafter the appellant filed the appeal in hand before the Tribunal.

3. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that his client has been denied both move-over and subsequently selection grade on feeble grounds because he fulfils all requirements under the relevant rules. He contended that the remarks in his A.C.R. for the year 1997 were of an advisory nature and therefore could not be treated as a bar against the grant of move-over or selection grade. He therefore prayed that the impugned order may be treated as void as it was illegal in the eyes of law.

4. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand; forcefully repelled the submissions of the appellant by stating that the name of the appellant was considered along with others for the grant of selection grade. Since the D.P.C. was required to consider each case on the basis of A.C.Rs. for the last five years, the appellant did-not meet the required threshold because of the adverse remarks in his A.C.R. He forcefully repelled the allegation the appellant's departmental appeal dated 3-3-2004 has remained undecided. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the appellant was informed about the rejection of his appeal vide letter dated 5-7-2004. The learned standing counsel concluded his submission by maintaining that according to rules, the most important criterion while considering cases for the grant of selection grade was that A.C.Rs. for the last five years should be free from any adverse entry. Since the appellant had one adverse entry in his A.C.R. for the year 1997, his case could not be .recommended under the relevant rules. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be rejected as not maintainable.

5. We have heard both sides and have also carefully perused the record placed before us. The issue agitated by the appellant is that the remarks in his A.C.R. of 1997 were of an advisory nature and therefore could not be treated as a bar against grant of selection grade. Before proceeding further, we consider it relevant to see the actual remarks that have been given to the appellant. The reporting officer in his observations says "he is intelligent and takes interest in the job. He is advised to understand the knowledge of E&M works Grading average". The countersigning officer in his assessment about the performance of the appellant sates, "An experienced Sub-Engineer who requires more interest in his job. Grading average." In our view these remarks, by any measure, are very vague and general in nature. Both, the reporting officer as well as the Countersigning Officer, have not indicated the specific area in which the appellant, in their opinion, is deficient and needs improvement. While perusing the record, we have not come across any reference which indicates that the appellant had received any counselling from his superior officers to which he did not pay any heed. Moreover, the Reporting Officer himself says "he is advised to understand the knowledge of E and M works". These remarks, therefore, in our opinion, can at best be considered as advisory in nature. We are supported in this opinion by the guidelines issued by the Government about performance evaluation reports which at serial number 3-15 states that advisory remarks are not to be treated as adverse for the purpose of promotion unless it has been established that the officer concerned has not paid any heed to the piece of advice given to him and has failed to show any improvement.

6. In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and direct the remarks in the A.C.R. of the appellant for the year 1997 should be treated as "advisory in nature" and not considered as "adverse" remarks. The case of the appellant for the grant of selection grade should be taken up accordingly.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and directing that appellant shall be considered for the grant of selection grade by the department in the next meeting of the competent Promotion Committee from the date his juniors were granted the selection grade. H.B.T./25/FST Order accordingly.