1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Appeal No. 91(R) of 1995; decided on 18th June, 1995. ‑‑‑‑Promotion‑‑Promotion with retrospective effect‑‑‑Civil servant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in Grade‑5 and was posted as 'Key Punch Operator' and he continued for about eight years in that post and grade‑‑‑Civil servant was offered post of Upper Division Clerks in Grade‑7, but he did not accept that offer and continued working as Key Punch Operator‑‑‑Subsequently when civil servant passed his F.A. Examination, he claimed that he should be given promotion first as Upper Division Clerk then as Assistant with retrospective effect from date his juniors were promoted‑‑‑Held, since civil servant did not apply for his promotion on basis of his qualification arid he himself did not accept offer of promotion which was due on basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness, promotion with retrospective effect, could not be granted to him. Shah Abdur Rashid for Appellant. M. Javid Aziz Sandhu, Standing Counsel along with Abdul Hafeez, DMA and Saleem Raza; Accountant, D.R. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th June, 1995. ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑‑The facts of this appeal are that the appellant was appointed in Grade‑5 with effect from 9-5‑1963 as LDC in the Office of COFA, Wah Cantt. On 16‑7‑1965, he was posted as Key Punch Operator, where he continued till 1973 when he was offered the post of UDC in Grade‑7 vide order dated 15‑3‑1974 and at the time of offer he was in Grade‑

6. He did not accept this offer and continued working as Key Punch Operator. Subsequently on 23‑10‑1979 he was promoted as UDC at his own request. The appellant has come with the grievance that he was F.A. and his case is covered by the decision taken in 1970 whereby respondents and some other who being junior were promoted as UDC and then Assistants till 1984. Therefore, he should also be given promotion first as UDC and then as Assistant with retrospective effect from that date when his juniors were promoted. It is argued that the appellant after passing F.A. Examination was entitled for promotion as UDC. Since the appellant did not apply for his promotion on the basis of his qualification on the plea that he was unaware of promotion policy but on his own seniority he was offered post of UDC (B‑7) which he did not accept as is evident from his application dated 2‑5‑1974. We are sorry to accept the contention of the appellant for his promotion with retrospective effect particularly when he himself did not accept the offer of his promotion on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness. It appears that he was not willing to serve outside his cadre of Key Punch Operator perhaps due to some other benefits. The question of qualification etc. at this belated stage is immaterial after years cannot be entertained. We find no substance and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./451Sr.F Appeal dismissed.