1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, SGA&I Department, Lahore and 5 others
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, SGA&I Department, Lahore and 5 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, SGA&I Department, Lahore and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 20‑1‑1992 passed in Appeal No. 725 of 1990). (a) Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Pro forma promotion‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Civil servant would be entitled to pro forma promotion only when he had been wrongly deprived of promotion post‑‑‑Where departmental inquiries had ended against civil servant and he was also punished in one of them, no question of wrongful deprivation of promotion would arise. (b) Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Civil servant was denied promotion while his colleagues had been promoted‑‑‑Civil servant was not found entitled to promotion because of the punishment which he was awarded in one of the departmental inquiries which had been initiated against him‑‑‑Civil servant was punished rightly and in accordance with law‑‑‑No. case of discrimination was made out either‑‑ Supreme Court declined interference.
Judgment & Decree
Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1993. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 20‑1‑1992 whereby a service appeal filed by him was dismissed as time barred.
2. The petitioner joined the Forest Service as a Forest Ranger (BS‑11) on .5‑10‑1962. This post was upgraded to BS‑16 by the Government w.e.f. 1‑5‑1977. When the question of adjustment of the petitioner in the higher grade came up for consideration it was found that six disciplinary cases were pending against him. His promotion/upgradation, therefore, was deferred. These departmental cases terminated subsequently and the petitioner was awarded the penalty of censure, stoppage of annual increment without future effect and recoveries of small amounts of Rs.30.40 and Rs.115.
3. After the inquiries had so concluded, the case ex‑post facto for pro forma promotion was made out of the appellant as well as of his other colleagues similarly affected. Tile departmental recommendation was to promote the petitioner. However, the competent authority did not promote the petitioner though his other colleagues were promoted by order dated 31‑7‑1989. He sought a reconsideration of this order by an application dated 4‑8‑1990 which did not succeed before the Governor vide order dated 4‑10‑1990. He thereupon filed the service appeal before the Tribunal on 31‑10‑1990.
4. The Tribunal did not examine the merits of the entitlement of the petitioner and instead held the appeal to be barred by limitation taking the order dated 31‑7‑1989 to be final order ignoring altogether the order dated 4‑10‑90 which was specifically mentioned and against which relief was sought.
5. The view taken by the Tribunal on the question of limitation is manifestly erroneous. Had the facts been not clear, it was a case of remand. However, it appears from the record itself that against the order dated 31‑7‑1989‑the petitioner moved for review in August, 1990. It was beyond time. Section 21 of the Civil Servants Act provides period of sixty days for moving such an application.
6. Apart from the question of limitation we find that on merits the petitioner has no case. He was seeking pro forma promotion. Pro forma promotion is made only when a civil servant has been wrongly deprived of the, promotion post. In the case in hand the departmental inquiries all ended against the petitioner and he was also punished in one of them. There is, therefore, no question of wrongful deprivation.
7. On the question of discrimination we find, after examining the cases of his colleagues, that they were on facts distinguishable. The identity required for making out a case of discrimination does not exist. 8.In the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused A.A./M‑1899/S Leave refused.