1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

"SI. No. 201: Minimum length of service for eligibility to promotion of officers.‑‑‑In pursuance of rule 8‑A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 and in supersession of the instructions laid down in the Establishment Division's Office Memorandum No. 1/9/80‑R.II(A), dated the 12th January, 1981, (Annexure I), the President is pleased to decide that the minimum length of service for promotion to various grades shall be as follows:‑‑ For Grade‑18 5 years in Grade‑17 For Grade‑19 12 years in Grade‑17 and above. For Grade‑20 17 years in Grade‑17 and above. For Grade‑21 22 years in Grade‑17 and above. Provided that: (i) Where initial appointment of a person not being a person in Government service takes place in a post in Grade‑18, 19 or 20, the length of service specified in this office memorandum shall be reduced by the following periods: First appointment Reduced by Grade‑18 5 years. Grade‑19 12 years. Grade‑20 17 years. (ii) Where initial appointment of a person already in Government service takes place, on recommendations of the Federal Public Service Commission, in a post in Grade‑18, 19 or 20, the length of service specified in this office memorandum shall be reduced by the periods specified in proviso (i); (iii) Where first appointment of a person other than a person covered by proviso (ii) was made to Government service in Grade‑16 or below, one‑half of the service in Grade‑16 and one‑fourth in Grade‑15 and below may be counted as service in Grade‑17 for computing length of service for the purpose of promotion only. " (Authority ‑‑‑Estt. Division O.M. No. 1/9/80‑R.2, dated 2nd June, 1983) "No. PF.88/92‑OMG. II (Pt.) Islamabad, the 23rd May, 1993. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: COUNTING/ADDITION OF LENGTH OF SERVICE PRIOR TO JOINING THE O.M.G. The undersigned is directed to refer .to Interior Division's O.M. No.5/8/92‑Admn.l, dated 20th February, 1993 on the above subject and to say that previous service rendered by Mr. Azizur Rehman, as Lecturer under the Federal Government as well as Extra Assistant Commissioner under the Government of Punjab will be counted/added towards his length of service for the purpose of promotion etc. in terms of Establishment Division's O.M. NO.I/9/80‑R.2, dated 2‑6‑1983. However, he will be considered for promotion from BPS‑17 to BPS‑18 in OMG according to his seniority in the Office Management Group." The perusal of the above O.M. issued by the Establishment Division shows that although the appellant squarely places his reliance on these documents, they do not support his case. So far as the O.M. dated 23‑5‑1993 is concerned, the previous service of an Officer has been specifically ordered to be counted/added towards his length of service for the purpose of promotion, etc. (which include leave and pension as well). However, it has been specifically mentioned that at the time of promotion from BPS‑17 to BPS‑18 in OMG he will be considered according to his seniority in the OMG. Although the appellant has not shown that his previous service has been specifically approved by the Establishment Division to be counted as in the referred case, however, had he been successful in getting such an order, even then he would have to wait for the maturity of his seniority in the OMG to be eligible for consideration for promotion to BPS‑

18. The second instruction dated 2‑6‑1983 is similarly irrelevant to give any benefit to the appellant. The said instruction does not mention that the person with previous service will supersede his seniors while his previous service is counted for the purpose of his promotion. The proposition can be stated in simple terms that if a civil servant is otherwise senior and fit for promotion but he cannot be promoted for want of the required length of service, his previous continued service can be counted to make up the deficiency of service and thereby the previous service in Grade‑17 can be counted as service in BPS‑17 while previous service in BPS‑16 is computed at one‑half and the service below Grade‑16 is counted as one‑fourth while computing the length of service in BPS‑17 but the other clear principle of maintenance of seniority cannot be trampled while complying with these instructions. During the arguments we were told that the appellant was at Serial No.91 of the gradation list whereas the Officers at Serial Nos. 89 and 90 belong to the same batch and are definitely senior to the appellant. Therefore, the benefit of previous service cannot be extended to the appellant to the detriment to seniority of said two officers.

5. The result of the above discussion is that we are of, the opinion that the appellant was not senior in his batch and his service in the OMG was less than length of service required for promotion to BPS‑18 and the benefit of his previous service under the Provincial Government cannot be extended to him whereby he supersedes the senior officers of his batch. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby rejected.

6. No order as to costs.

7. Parties to be informed H.B.T./25/Sr.F Appeal rejected.