1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Entitlement to monetary benefits of promotion‑‑‑Civil servant was recommended for promotion in December 1983 vide letter dated 2‑1‑1984‑‑‑Civil servant, however, was not relieved to join his new assignment for no fault attributable to him‑‑‑Civil servant would thus, be deemed to have been promoted with effect from 2‑1‑1984, when order of his promotion was issued and would be, paid all monetary benefits of his promotion as such, until the day he retired from service‑‑‑Civil servant was also awarded specified amount as cost of appeal he had fought for achieving his legitimate rights in service, which he was entitled to, even according to Authority's pleadings. Ale Hassan Malik for Appellant. Ch. Rashid Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing. 19th April, 1992. SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑Appellant Mr. Zafar Shah Khan, Assistant Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways, Karachi, has preferred this appeal on 29‑3‑1989 for fixation of his pay etc. The facts stated by the appellant are that he was appointed as Clerk Grade‑I in the Railway Department on 11‑12‑1950. He was promoted as a Clerk Grade‑II on 24‑8‑1954. On his selection by a duly constituted Selection Board, he was promoted as Welfare Assistant Grade II on 3‑2‑1960. He was further promoted as Welfare Inspector Grade‑V on 3‑1‑1964. He was further promoted as Senior Welfare Inspector Grade‑VII (RNPS‑14) on 1‑4‑1974. On his clearance for promotion by the DPC, he was promoted as Assistant Personnel Officer (B‑17) in December, 1983 vide General Manager/Personnel Pakistan Railways, Lahore's letter No. 940‑E/2361 (PO)‑V, dated 2‑1‑1984 (Annex A‑1). However, he was not relieved to join his assignment as Assistant Personnel Officer at Sukkur owing to the interest of work at the Divisional office, Karachi. He was again recommended to have been utilised/posted as Protocol Officer (B‑17) against an existing vacancy at Karachi vide D.O. letter dated 26‑8‑1984 addressed by the Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railways, Karachi to the Chief Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways, Lahore. This time too he was not spared to join the new assignment. He was again put to work as Assistant Personnel Officer against a leave vacancy at Karachi with effect from 8‑1‑1987 as confirmed by the General Manager/Personnel under his letter dated 7‑2‑1987. He was ultimately posted against a permanent vacancy of Assistant Personnel Officer (B‑17) on retirement of one Mr. S.M. Fahim Siddiqi, with effect from 9‑2‑1987 and it was recommended that his appointment as APO (B‑17) may be regularised with effect from December, 1983 when he was cleared by the D.P.C. first time for his promotion. However, the, General Manager/Personnel, Pakistan Railways, Lahore did not agree to that recommendation and approved his appointment on current charge basis until he sought clearance from the DPC for his?????? promotion. The appellant made several‑representations to higher authorities for regularisation of his promotion with effect from 1983 when he was cleared for promotion by the DPC but to no avail and his appointment on current charge basis as Assistant Personnel Officer (B‑17) was extended. He submitted appeal to the Chairman, Railway Board on 17‑4‑1988 and he was informed in reply thereto by the General Manager, Personnel, under letter dated 13‑6‑1988, that his name had already been considered by the DPC and recommendations had since been sent to the Railway Board for their approval. The Railway Board ultimately approved his appointment on acting charge basis with effect from 4‑8‑1988. He again made representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, on 30‑8‑1988 against the injustice meted out to him on the basis of two other officers cleared for promotion to BPS‑17 but were allowed benefits of increments and fixation of pay with effect from 1983. This time too his representation was turned down and the decision of the General Manager was maintained. In the meantime, an identical case of one Mr. S. Ilyas Raza, who was also cleared for promotion in 1983, was approved for allied benefits of increments and fixation of pay with retrospective effect. The appellant again made another appeal to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways on 19‑12‑1988 for giving him the requisite benefits of promotion as were given to Mr. Ilyas Raza but did not find any response. He then preferred this appeal on 29‑3‑1989.

2. The averments made by the appellant in the memo of appeal, which have been recapitulated in the above narration of the facts, are supported by the documents filed by him as Annexures A‑1 to

18. In their written objections, the respondents have virtually admitted almost all the facts stated by the appellant. They have straightaway admitted the facts of paras. 1 to 13 of the appeal by stating that those facts were not denied. They have also admitted that the appellant was not provided the opportunity to join his new assignment as Assistant Personnel Officer at Sukkur on promotion, on administrative reasons, and he was, as such, entitled to the fixation of pay from 1983 but without arrears, as was done in the case of one Mr. Naseer Ahmad ex‑APO‑II in terms of Railways Board's letter No. 615/86‑A‑1I, dated 10‑10‑1989. They have also not denied the contents of para. 16 of the appeal. However, they have taken the plea in para. 6 of the written objections in reply to para 17 of the appeal that the recommendation of DPC in favour of the appellant was assessment of his initial suitability for promotion and it was to take effect from the date of approval by the competent authority. They have further stated that the case of the appellant for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer (B‑17) could not be finalised because of non‑existence of recruitment rules for the post of APO required to have been made under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and which rules were never approved by the competent authority, i.e. the Establishment Division. They have admitted in para. 7 of the written objections that Mr. Ilyas Raza was allowed pro forma promotion with retrospective date but have contended that those benefits did not carry the benefits of arrears of pay for the preceding period. They have categorically admitted in para 8 of the written objections, in reply to para. 19 of the appeal, that the appellant was entitled to the benefits as granted to Mr. IIyas Raza. There is no denial by the respondents to the rest of the assertions made in the memo of appeal vide paragraphs 20 to

22. As to give fatal blow to the appeal of the appellant, the respondents have advanced the legal ground that the appeal is time‑barred.

3. The facts depicted above do bear out that the appellant was cleared by the DPC for promotion as Assistant Personnel Officer (B‑17) in December, 1983 and order of his promotion, as such, and his posting at Sukkur was issued on 2‑1‑1984, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A‑1, but he was not spared to join his new assignment on promotion and that fact was affirmed by Mr. Zafarullah Qureshi, Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi in his D.O. letter 28‑6‑1987 addressed to Mr. Firozuddin, Chief Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways, Lahore. The name of the appellant was also recommended for promotion by the same Divisional Superintendent, Karachi, earlier in his D.O. letter dated 26‑8‑1984 to Mr. Rafiq Ahmad, Chief Personnel Officer, Lahore. However, the appellant was denied his due promotion and he was dragged on by putting him in BPS‑17 post on current charge basis. He was virtually tortured by putting him on current charge basis all along. The respondents have no cogent explanation for having made him so much torture but they have rather admitted almost all the facts and conceded that the appellant was entitled to the benefits of Grade‑17 post with effect from January 1984 on the basis of his approval for promotion by the DPC in the year 1983. The only ground put forth by them is that of limitation which objection is dealt with hereinbelow.

4. The case of the 'appellant for promotion despite his approval for promotion by the DPC in the year 1983 was dragged on as stated above, up to 1988 and it was finally turned down at the level of General Manager, Personnel, Pakistan Railways, Lahore as per letter dated 11‑2-1989 despatched to the appellant from the office of the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi. There is a letter dated 30‑8‑1988 from the Divisional Personnel Officer, Karachi to the Assistant Personnel Officer‑II, Pakistan Railways, Karachi to the effect that the appellant should be informed with reference to his application dated 17‑4‑1988 addressed to the Chairman, Railway Board that his name had already been considered by the DPC and recommendations had since been sent to the Railway Board for their approval. This chain of correspondence bears out that the case of the appellant was not closed departmentally and it was under consideration. As a last resort, the appellant made an appeal to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad on 19‑12‑1988 and failing to get orders within the requisite period of 90 days he preferred this appeal on 29‑3‑1989. No doubt, repetition of representations does not revive the period of limitation provided the authorities take definite decision and in case the authorities had reconsidered the case, the period of limitation does not stand closed until irreversible decision is taken by the competent authority. This happens to be a case of that nature. Moreover, the appellant has made an application for condonation of delay on the aforesaid grounds and we are of the view that so much time occupied in making departmental representations which were duly considered by the authorities and there were admittedly the precedents where benefits were allowed to other employees with retrospective effect, as far back as 1983, as claimed by the appellant, the bar of limitation came in operation only on the appellant's failing to get orders on his last departmental appeal addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways on 19‑12‑1988. We are therefore, of the view that the technical delay in preferring the appeal is‑ condonable and is hereby condoned.

5. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal‑is allowed and the orders whereby the appellant was denied the benefits of promotion to BPS‑17 right from January, 1984 are set aside and it is directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been promoted to BPS‑17 with effect from 2‑1‑1984 when the order of his promotion was issued, and he shall be paid all the monetary benefits of his promotion as such until the day he retired from service. The appellant is also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost of the appeal he has fought for achieving his legitimate rights in service which he was entitled to, even according to the respondents pleadings. The cost shall be paid to him by Pakistan Railways Administration through the General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore. A.A./767/Sr.F ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal accepted.