Upgradation of post
Upgradation of post legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Authorities were aggrieved of direction issued by High Court in favour of respondents/civil servants regarding upgradation and redesignation of posts
Validity
Upgradation of a post is not a vested right, rather it stems from a policy decision intended to benefit a particular set of employees under the scheme embedded in the policy
Upgradation cannot be mixed up with promotion
In case of upgradation, employee continues to hold same post without any change in his duties but he is accorded a higher pay scale in order to mitigate distress associated with stagnation due to lack of progression of promotional avenues
Once Government announces a policy, it is also responsible for enforcing such policy across the board to accord benefit of policy to all those who are eligible under it and may benefit because of it
Court cannot interfere in policy making domain of government but when a widespread and comprehensive policy is announced to benefit employees, it should be implemented bigheartedly and generously, without adding any ifs and buts or discrimination that can stifle main objective of the policy
Similar laws, rules and polices should apply uniformly to all in similar situations, without any discrimination or distinction between one employee and another within the sphere of legislation or policy, provided that their status is substantially equivalent and indistinguishable
Even in cases of classification or categorization, such distinctions must not be arbitrary but should be based on reasons, qualities and characteristics that establish an intelligible differentia for those who have been left out of the arena or who have been excluded with clarity regarding the objective sought to be achieved
Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Upgradation cannot be made to benefit a particular individual in terms of promoting him to a higher post or further providing him with the avenues of lateral appointment or transfer or posting
In order to justify the upgradation, the government is required to establish that the department needs restructuring, reform or to meet the exigency of service in public interest
In the absence of these pre-conditions, upgradation is not permissible.
This upgrade remained in place for over six years, whereafter, through an office order the upgradation was withdrawnby downgrading the petitioners to BPS-16
Petitioners claimed the upgradation was policy-based, not person-specific, and its withdrawal violated natural justice and lacked lawful authority
They also challenged the legality of appointments of certain governing body members and sought regularization and further upgradation to BPS-18
Held: In 2013 there was no specific "Upgradation Policy" relevant to the petitioners, nonetheless, it was a standard legal principle that any upgraded position required corresponding amendments to its recruitment rules, detailing the method of recruitment and necessary qualifications which rules should also lay out the procedure for such upgrades
A key point was that an upgraded post did not automatically lead to the incumbent's promotion
Notably, the 2023 recruitment rules which categorized the position in question as promotion-based, meaning direct "upgradation" was no longer applicable
However, re-grading (a change in the grade of a post) might have still occurred
This shift in policy which led to recalling the petitioners' earlier upgradation was potentially to align with the Supreme Court's decision and the updated rules
Upgradation issued in 2013 did not create a vested right for the petitioners, as it lacked legal sanction or authority
Therefore, the doctrine of locus poenitentiae (the ability to withdraw a flawed decision) did not apply
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Where upgradation lackslegal sanction or authority, it does not confer vested rights in favour of the employee,and in such circumstances, doctrine of locus poenitentiae (the ability to withdraw a flawed decision) would not apply.
Grant of up-gradation is not a vested right and as the same is based on a policy decision of the competent authority/Executive, the High Court in writ jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution cannot interfere in the policy matter of the Provincial Government/Executive
Constitution petition was dismissed accordingly.
Petitioners were employees of respondent University who sought their promotion and upgradation of their post on the basis of a 'Notification'
Validity
Upgradation could not be claimed as a matter of right but was based on policy decision of competent authority for its implementation across the board for particular categories of employees jotted down in the Scheme/Notification who fulfilled required qualification which was normally a particular length of service in a particular pay scale
Promotion involved advancement in rank/grade, whereas facility or benefit of upgradation conferred some monetary benefits by granting a higher pay scale to ventilate stagnation
Benefit of upgradation was normally granted to persons stuck-up in one pay scale for considerable period of their length of service either having no venue for promotion or progression
High Court set aside the Notification in question issued by University authorities being illegal, without any lawful authority and void ab-initio
High Court directed respondent University to reconsider the cases of all its employees who benefitted from the Notification, and in case Notifications of their promotions and upgradations of posts were not on merits or in accordance with settled principles of law, the same be recalled/reviewed
High Court directed University authorities to consider the cases of petitioners for promotion strictly on merits and in accordance with law, and without further delay
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Petitioners working as Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) under the Federal Government Educational Institutions (Cantonments and Garrison), Rawalpindi, were denied upgradation of their post from BS-16 to BS-17 on the ground that the status of the petitioners was quite different from the employee of the Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad, where post was upgraded to BS-17 and that upgradation could not be claimed as a matter of right
Held, that upgradation is not a part of terms and conditions of service, rather it is based on a policy decision of competent authority, the purpose of which is to eliminate the sufferings of employees from stagnation and to avoid them being stuck up in some isolated post without any pathway or probability of promotion despite satisfactory length of service in a particular post
Upgradation cannot thus be claimed as a matter of right by an employee or group of employees, but at the same time once the competent authority decides to redress sufferings of employees, who may remain as dormant in future, and proceeds to upgrade a particular post, such benefit cannot be extended only to single or one set of persons serving at the same post
Article 25 of the "Constitution" ordains that every citizen shall be dealt with equally and there shall be no discrimination
Present petition was resisted by the respondents mainly on the ground that the since petitioners were serving in the Federal Government Educational Institutions (Cantonments and Garrison), they could not claim the upgradation of their post as allowed to the employees of the Federal Directorate of Education
Such contention held no water firstly on the ground that respondent had already recommended the upgradation of the post of Physical Training Instructors ("PTI") in BS-17 to dispel the discrimination in the employees of Federal Government Educational Institutions (Cantonments and Garrison)
Secondly, it was an undeniable fact that in another constitutional petition one of the petitioners was a "PTI" teacher, who was allowed relief of upgradation and said judgment was never challenged by the respondents
Respondents were thus precluded to draw any distinction in the case of the petitioners
Petitioners had been treated discriminately by the respondents, which offended the mandate of Art. 25 of the Constitution
Respondents were directed to upgrade/redesignate the post of PTI BS-16 to BS-17 (SST) accordingly
Petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Upgradation could not be claimed as a matter of right but was in fact based on a policy decision of the competent authority jotted down in a scheme/notification for its implementation across the board for particular categories of employees who fulfilled the required qualification which was normally a particular length of service in a particular pay scale.
Upgradation could not be claimed as a matter of right but was in fact based on a policy decision of the competent authority jotted down in a scheme/notification for its implementation across the board for particular categories of employees who fulfilled the required qualification which was normally a particular length of service in a particular pay scale.
Special Library Assistant of National Institute of Management adjusted against the post of Assistant and promoted to Information Technology Officer in National School of Public Policy
Respondent being Special Library Assistant in National Institute of Management was adjusted against the post of Assistant in National School of Public Policy and thereafter promoted as Information Technology Officer
Contention of petitioners-employees was that they being Computer Operators should have been adjusted against the posts of Information Technology Officer
Validity
Post of Assistant (BS-14) could be filled by direct recruitment/transfer/deputation even by promotion amongst the eligible employees of respective National Institute of Management
Adjustment of respondent against the post of Assistant (BS-14) in National School of Public Policy was against the National School of Public Policy Service Regulations, 2014
Post of Computer Operators had been upgraded not in terms of names of the incumbents but in terms of posts specified
Up-gradation of posts did not mean automatic up-gradation of the incumbents of these posts
If department had decided to abolish the post of Computer Operators and created new posts of Information Technology Officer then incumbents of posts should have been considered on the upgraded posts otherwise appointment against the upgraded post was required to be made in the manner prescribed in recruitment rules of that particular post
Petitioners-employees were still working on the same post of Computer Operators
Promotion of respondent on the post of Information Technology Officer had been made by the Departmental Promotion Committee without framing recruitment rules
Qualification was prerequisite for the appointment by promotion on the post
No relaxation in qualification could be made and only the candidates who met the criteria could be promoted and not otherwise
Sanctity could not be extended to the process of promotion of private respondent on the upgraded post in the manner as initiated by the department
Serious discrepancies in the service of private respondent were on record which required attention
Cadre of respondent was changed against law and he was wrongly adjusted as Assistant (BPS-14) on his own pay and scale
Impugned order for promotion of respondent was set aside
Authorities were directed to fill up the upgraded posts of Information Technology Officers (BPS-16) in accordance with National School of Public Policy Service Regulations, 2014
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Employee-petitioner was promoted in BPS-20 and allowed pay and allowances admissible to civil servants through an amendment in Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council Employees Service Rules, 1999 but same were withdrawn thereafter
Writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed
Validity
Nothing was on record that employee petitioner was granted BPS-20 by the Bar Council unanimously
Matter of qualification and terms and conditions of the staff to be employed in the Bar Council had firstly to be considered by the Executive Committee who would recommend the same to the Bar Council; Bar Council thereafter had to either accede the recommendations of the Executive Committee or decide otherwise
If Bar Council affirmed the recommendations of Executive Committee, same might have to be effected through amendment in the Rules
After incorporation of the amendment in the Rules same had to be notified in the official gazette
Any change in the qualifications, terms and conditions of service of the employees of Bar Council could only be effected by amendment in Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council Employees Service Rules, 1999
Neither matter of employee petitioner had been placed before the Executive Committee nor there were any recommendations in that regard
No amendment had been incorporated in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council Employees Service Rules, 1999
Matter of up-gradation of the post of Secretary Bar Council from grade BPS-18 to BPS-20 had not been dealt with in a prescribed manner
Claim of employee petitioner with regard to sanction of grade BPS-20 in his favour was not valid
Substitution of words "BPS-18" for "BPS-20" in the appendix of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council Employees Service Rules, 1999 was incorrect and invalid
Any act in violation of law would neither create any legal right in favour of its beneficiary nor writ could be issued for protection of ill-gotten gains or implementation of illegal orders
Employee petitioner was not legally entitled to the emoluments of grade BPS-20
Emoluments drawn in excess of grade BPS-18 were refundable from the employee petitioner and needful had to be done by the concerned person according to law
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council was creation of statute which according to its constitution and incorporation was a body corporate
Bar Council was competent to make Rules regarding qualifications, terms and conditions of service of its employees
Bar Council could not be forced to make expenses beyond its financial resources
Funds of Bar Council had to be spent in a specified manner
Mere vesting of powers to Bar Council for making Rules did not mean that it was empowered to make rules while ignoring the constitutional legal norms and in the arbitrary manner
Powers had to be exercised reasonably in a judicious manner keeping in view the spirit of equity and vested legal rights of the State subjects
Terms and conditions of service of any person should not be varied to his disadvantage
Bar Council while adopting new system should have been mindful that at least same should be proportionate to the emoluments admissible to the employees at the time of change according to the previous system
Grant of grade BPS-20 to the employee petitioner was illegal and he was to be treated in Grade BPS-18 at the time of change in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council Employees Service Rules, 1999
Emoluments of employee petitioner in the new system should not be less than 60,000/- per month
Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was modified and writ petition was partly allowed
Appeal was disposed of in circumstances.
Upgradation was resorted to only for the incumbents of isolated posts, which had no avenues or channel of promotion at all
Upgradation under a scheme was personal to the incumbents of the isolated posts, to address their stagnation and frustration on a particular post for sufficient length of service without any progression or avenue of promotion
Upgradation was carried out under a scheme and or a policy to incentivize, encourage and give financial benefits without creating additional vacancies of higher grade
Upgradation by no standards could be treated and or considered as promotion to a higher grade
Incumbent occupying upgraded post retained their substantive grade.
Upgradation was resorted to only for the incumbents of isolated posts, which had no avenues or channel of promotion at all
Upgradation under a scheme was personal to the incumbents of the isolated posts, to address their stagnation and frustration on a particular post for sufficient length of service without any progression or avenue of promotion
Upgradation was carried out under a scheme and or a policy to incentivize, encourage and give financial benefits without creating additional vacancies of higher grade
Upgradation by no standards could be treated and or considered as promotion to a higher grade
Incumbent occupying upgraded post retained their substantive grade.
Summary for upgradation was moved in violation of Ss.7(xvi), 8 & 9 of Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976 which was channeled without approval of competent authority
Order for upgradation was not intended to be used as a policy applicable to all concerned rather same was meant to benefit two specific persons
Employee was claiming benefit on the basis of summary which was forwarded by violating the procedure of law
Employee could not claim that prevalent procedure of law had been ignored
Order for upgradation of employee was illegal
Employee was not entitled to any relief on such ground even under the principles of equity
Purpose of moving summary of upgradation was not transparent rather same was arbitrary
Service structure of whole of the Organization had not been changed
No permanent post of employee had been created nor for such posts any qualification/experience or criteria had been prescribed rather for two person specific upgradation was ordered
Such specific promotion/upgradation was prejudicial to the public interest
Order for upgrading only the post of present employee being hit by the Principles of natural justice was not sustainable
Principle of locus poenitentiae could not be used where grant of relief was immoral, unfair or against the dictates of good conscience and fair play
High Court was not bound to grant relief to such employee on the ground that he was entitled to some relief
Constitutional jurisdiction being discretionary could not be granted to hold and retain ill-gotten gain
Order for upgradation had not been implemented
Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.
Such decision could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court on the purported plea of discrimination
Upgradation of post was not a vested right.
Prior to said upgradation petitioner-employee was transferred from Stenographer (BS-15) to Administrative Officer (BS-16)
Plea of petitioner-employee was that he had worked as Stenographer and in that capacity he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Private Secretary (BS-17)
Validity
Promotion of petitioner-employee as Private Secretary from the post of Stenographer was possible only when he did not accept his promotion to the post of Administrative Officer (BS-16)
No discrimination had been pointed out with the petitioner-employee with regard to promotion against the suit post
Petitioner-employee had not pointed out promotion of any person depriving him from his due right of promotion if any
Writ petition was dismissed in circumstance
Chief Court observed that present order would not operate as estoppel for promotion of petitioner-employee if he was otherwise eligible for the same.
"Upgradation of post", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124955974
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Upgradation of post"
1992 P L C (C
WAZIR MUHAMMAD ALI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment
Court: High Court1988 P L C (C
AZIZ MUHAMMAD and 13 others Versus THE SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others
Court: Federal Service Tribunal2026 P L C (C
Mst. RUKHSANA KOUSAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Chairman Upgradation Committee and others
Court: Islamabad High Court2017 P L C (C
REGIONAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, NORTHERN REGION, ISLAMABAD and another Versus Syed MUNAWAR ALI and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2016 S C M R 859
REGIONAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, NORTHERN REGION, ISLAMABAD and another — Appellants Versus Syed MUNAWAR ALI and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1997 P L C (C
MUHAMMAD HAYAT CHANNA and others Versus JETHANAND RATHI and others
Court: Sindh Service Tribunal1980 P L C (C
MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT Versus MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ETC.
Court: Federal Service Tribunal2010 P L C (C
Mrs. SAMIA IQBAL and 6 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Home Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another
Court: Lahore High Court2016 P L C (C
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN M/o RAILWAYS, through Secretary and others Versus JAMSHED HUSSAIN CHEEMA and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2016 S C M R 442
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN M/o RAILWAYS, through Secretary and others — Appellants Versus JAMSHED HUSSAIN CHEEMA and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan