1998 PLP 2721 (SCMR)
KHURSHID AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and 14 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2721 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Karim, JJ . |
| Parties | KHURSHID AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and 14 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2721 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2721 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Karim, JJ ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2721 (SCMR) (KHURSHID AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and 14 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th March, 1996.
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18‑6‑1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No. 91(R) of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servant was offered promotion to next grade but he preferred to continue in his previous grade‑‑‑Subsequently, however, civil servant was promoted on his own request‑‑‑Civil servant's grievance that his juniors were promoted on basis of a letter and were, later on, further promoted and that he too should be promoted from back date, was repelled by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant maintained that he could not be deprived of his right of promotion simply because he had, at one stage, requested for his promotion to be deferred‑‑‑Civil servant, in fact, had not applied for promotion till 1979 and. when he did. he was promoted‑‑‑Promotion could not be thrust upon civil servant‑‑‑Civil servant had been offered promotion in 1974, but he had refused to avail the same‑‑‑Civil servant having not availed of his right of promotion in 1974, no question of giving him retrospective promotion would arise‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL KARIM, J.
The petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. in Grade-5 on 9-5-1963. On 16-7-1965 he was appointed as Key Punch Operator; he was in Grade-6 when on 15-3-1974 he was offered promotion in Grade-7. However, he preferred to continue as Key Punch Operator in Grade-6 and on his request his promotion was deferred. Then, on his own request he was promoted on 23-10-1979 as U.D.C.
2. The grievance made by him before the Tribunal was that he had done F.A. in 1967; that by virtue of a letter of the year 1970, his juniors were promoted as U.D.C. and were later promoted as Assistant and that he should like his juniors, also be granted promotion as U.D.C. and then as Assistant from the back date. Before the Tribunal it was conceded that he had not applied for his promotion till 1979 and that as soon as he did so apply, he was granted promotion. It was said that he had not applied for promotion because he was unaware of the promotion policy. The Tribunal repelled that explanation; it appeared to the Tribunal that "he was not willing to serve outside his cadre of , Key Punch Operator perhaps due to some other benefits".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that the petitioner could not be deprived of his right of promotion because he had at one stage requested for his promotion. to be deferred. The real point is that he had not applied for promotion till 1979 and when he did he was given promotion. Obviously, promotion could not be thrust upon him. If the instructions contained in the letter of the year 1970 availed him, then he was entitled to promotion in 1974, when promotion was actually offered to him. It was he who did not avail of his right to promotion. No question of giving him retrospective promotion, therefore, arises.
4. The petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. A.A./K-17/S Leave refused.