1990 PLP 364 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 5th July, 1989. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 16‑6‑1988 whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner ‑as dismissed. Petitioner's appeal was really, for the implementation of the earlier judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 16-7‑1987 whereby his seniority was fixed as from 26‑4‑1975, when he joined the post of Deputy Secretary in the Federal Government through lateral entry. The Service Tribunal further directed that petitioner should be considered for promotion as and when he would complete the required length of service. In implementation of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 16‑6‑1988 petitioner's seniority was fixed as from 26‑4‑1975 and he has no grievance in this regard, but he was ‑aggrieved by the refusal of consequential action regarding his promotion. His case before the Federal Service Tribunal was that although he had reached the maximum of the scale in BPS‑19 in December, 1982 yet he was neither granted the benefit of move‑over to B‑20 nor given the promotion due to him in terms of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. He, therefore, claimed seniority and promotion over the private respondents herein. The case of the Department before the Service Tribunal was that petitioner has already been placed at Serial No. 133‑A between the names of M/S Niaz Ahmad and Mohammad Saleem Khan in the gradation list of officers of the secretariat Group (B‑19). His case for promotion to B‑20 was considered by the Central Selection Board in its meeting held on 14‑9‑1987 but he was not cleared for promotion, and, in the circumstances, the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 16‑7‑1987 stands fully implemented. The Service Tribunal agreed with this view and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 16‑6‑1988. Petitioner who appears in person made the following submissions, amongst others: "(a) That the Federal Service Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that 37 Deputy Secretaries junior to the petitioner had been placed over the head of the petitioner in the seniority list prepared by the respondent in violation of the orders of the Tribunal. (b) It seems that the respondent‑I has deliberately blocked the promotion of the petitioner by misinterpreting the rules/instructions made by themselves and applying the same from retrospective effect to the disadvantage of the petitioner and thus the law has been flouted. (c) The respondent No.l has blocked the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Secretary on the basis of so‑called `indifferent service record' of the petitioner. Throughout his service under the Federal :Government from 26‑4‑1975 to-date not even a single adverse remark has ever been communicated to the petitioner and hence his ACRs are either Very Good, Good, or Average and there is no bar for promotion of Average Officers." . The. points raised in support of the petition deserve, consideration.. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Appeal will be heard on the present record but it is open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. A.A./S‑435/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.