Estacode 1989

2021 PLC(CS) 777 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Srl. No.28DeputationTenureFailure to report to parent departmentEffect

Upon completion of maximum permissible deputation period of five years, it is obligatory upon borrowing department to repatriate a deputationist to parent department

Failure on the part of borrowing department to repatriate a deputationist who completes maximum permissible deputation period of five years is an actionable wrong

High Court observed that payment of salary to a deputationist beyond maximum deputation period of five years is an unnecessary and unjustified burden on exchequer and has to be made good from personal coffers of public functionaries in borrowing department who are derelict in their duty in not relieving a deputationist upon completion of the period.

2004 PLC(CS) 612 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 212(3)ESTACO DE (1989), SI.No.106

Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether or not the civil servant was entitled to the grant of seniority from the date on which he started officiating against the post on transfer to Civil Aviation Authority from Pakistan Air Force.

2001 PLC(CS) 412 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.4ESTACODE, 1989 Edn., S1. Nos.112 & 115Termination of service, on last day of probation periodCivil servant was dismissed from service on the last day when probation period was endingDismissal letter was handed over after the working hours on the same day

Contention by Government was that any order could be made by the Competent Authority in relation to the civil servant by midnight

Validity

Contention was without merit

Working hours having come to close on any givers day, the status of employee had to be governed, thereafter, by the position on the basis of continuity in his period of employment, according to law

Where the services of civil servant had not been terminated up to afternoon of the day, then the same were to be treated as without taint up to midnight-on that date and beyond-

2001 PLC(CS) 498 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

PromotionESTACODE 1989 Edn.; Serial No. 189, para. 2(b)Recommendation , of Central Selection BoardReview

Ministry of Education processed promotion cases of Assistant Professors from BPS-18 to BPS-19 and placed those cases before Central Selection Board and Board. in its meeting cleared cases of civil servants, but did not approve cases of opposing civil servants

Recommendations of Central Selection Board were placed before Competent Authority, but Competent Authority with some observations referred back cases to Ministry of Education

Ministry of Education revised the cases in the light of observations of Competent Authority and again submitted cases to Central Selection Board and Board in its meeting considered revised proposal of Competent Authority and approved the promotions of opposing civil servants against which civil servants had got grievance

-Contention of civil servant was that Central Selection Board in its earlier meeting having recommended promotion of civil servants, Competent Authority was bound to accept reconsideration of Central Selection Board and Competent Authority had no locus standi to refer back the cases

Contention of civil servant was repelled in view of the fact that para. 2(b), Serial No. 189, ESTACODE, 1989 had clearly -provided that in case Competent Authority had disagreed with the recommendations of Central Selection Board, the case should be returned to Central Selection Board for reconsideration

Central Selection Board being a recommendatory body its recommendations were not binding on Competent Authority as alleged by civil servants and Competent Authority in its wisdom had got the discretion to refer back cases

Cases of civil servants as well as opposing civil servants having duly been reconsidered by Central Selection Board according to their seniority and good performance on basis of their A.C.Rs., as per promotion policy, no illegality had been committed in their cases

2000 PLC(CS) 1038 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art.212(3)ESTACODE, 1989 Edn., Chap.VI, Sr. Nos. 63 to 69Grant of additional chargeCivil servant was given an additional charge of the post of Commercial Secretary, High Commission of PakistanGrant of additional charge was turned down by the Establishment Division being not tenable

Appeal of civil servant before Service Tribunal was dismissed on the ground that civil servant did not lay any claim to his eligibility as also qualification for promotion as Commercial Secretary but a compensation of 10 % of the pay of his own post for performing the additional duty was allowed

Validity

Such was the adequate compensation for the same

Substantial justice having been done in the case, Supreme Court declined to substitute its decision for that of the Service Tribunal

Leave to appeal was refused.

1998 PLC(CS) 1278 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 8ESTACODE. 1989 Edn., p.226SeniorityFixation ofConsiderations to be kept in view while fixing the seniority of departmental promotees inter se

Civil servant who was consciously superseded after considering his service record by the Departmental Promotion Committee, cannot regain his original seniority on subsequent promotion so long the order of Promotion Committee superseding him stands

Supersession of the civil servant in such a case is neither inadvertent nor same falls in the category of deferment, so as to entitle the civil servant on subsequent promotion, to regain his original seniority.

1998 PLC(CS) 1130 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 8ESTACODE (1989 Edn.), pp. 20 to 23

Army personnel who was on deputation in civil service and was subsequently inducted in civil service had retired from the military service after his induction in civil service was approved by the Competent Authority

Such army personnel having continued as a member of Armed Forces until his retirement from Army, his case was squarely covered by the instructions appearing at pp. 20 to 23 of the ESTACODE (1989 Edn.)

Contention that service of such person may be considered from the date when he joined the civil service as deputationist was misconceived as he continued as member of Armed Forces until his retirement from Army.

1998 PLC(CS) 471 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 8(4) [as amended by Civil Servants (Amendment) Ordinance (III of 1984)]ESTACODE, 1989, para. 9, p. 1098Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212Civil servant's appointment as Joint Secretary in BPS-20 in Secretariat Group on 12-8-1981

Civil servant's grievance to the effect that his seniority should be reckoned from the date of his promotion to Grade-20 and not from the date of his appointment to Secretariat Group was not responded by Departmental Authority

Service Tribunal, however, directed that seniority of civil servant should be determined from 24-7-1979

Validity

Decision of Service Tribunal that civil servant's seniority should be reckoned with effect from 24-7-1979 when he was promoted to Grade-20, was not open to any exception

After amendment in S.8(4), Civil Servants Act, 1973 by Civil Servants (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984, word "grade" was substituted by word "post" but civil servant having already been promoted to Grade-20 before such amendment came into force, such amendment would not affect his rights

Para. 9 of ESTACODE, 1989 (at p. 1098) provides that "the seniority of Joint Secretary which is a post in Grade-20 would be determined from the date of his continuous regular officiation in Grade-20"

Seniority of civil servant, therefore, must be reckoned on his regular entry in Grade-20 and not from the date of his posting

Appeal against judgment of Service Tribunal was dismissed in circumstances.

1997 PLC(CS) 739 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionESTACODE, 1989,S.No. 34, p.340Employee of statutory bodyCurtailment of deputation period before its expiryValidityNo employee had vested right to remain on deputation for full period of tenureRepatriation would be valid on the ground that tenure post did not mean a post to be held for prescribed periodSuch period could be curtailed by borrowing AuthorityInstructions of ESTACODE were not applicable in respect of employees of statutory bodies

Petitioner was not entitled to relief in discretionary jurisdiction of High Court.

1996 PLC(CS) 481 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

SI. No. 47, p. 352, para. 9-AService Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4Civil servant of Balochistan. GovernmentServices borrowed by Establishment Division for appointment as Section Officer on deputation

Establishment Division subsequently asked for consent of civil servant of Provincial Government for his being considered for permanent induction/absorption in Office Management Group

Petitioner gave his consent and Provincial Government also assented to his induction as such

When such formalities were being completed services of civil servant were placed at the disposal of Narcotics Control Division

Establishment Division while placing services of Civil servant at the disposal of Narcotics Division clarified that civil servant had severed all connections with the Office Management Group

Civil servant being aggrieved in regard to severing his connections with Office Management Group filed departmental appeal which was not accepted

Validity

Civil servant was deputed in Office Management Group under Federal Government and was being considered for induction to Office Management Group on specified terms and conditions and both civil servant and his parent department had given their consent whereafter transaction was nearly to be completed

Meanwhile services of civil servant were required by Narcotics Control Division and he was placed at their disposal

Provision of R.9-A, ESTACODE indicated that civil servants in other group, services and cadres of Federal Government and those of Provincial Governments including those serving in Federal Government on deputation basis were eligible for appointment by transfer in Office Management Group in prescribed manner

Civil servant had been serving in Federal Government on deputation for a number of years and even now he was working on deputation basis with the Federal. Government, therefore, he did not lack eligibility for consideration for induction in Office Management Group

Mere fact that he had ceased to be a Section Officer did not disentitle him for consideration for induction, especially when exercise of induction in Office Management Group had already been taken by the Government

Civil servant and his parent department having already been informed that he was being; considered for induction such exercise was required to be processed to its logical conclusion and especially when his colleagues were being considered for induction in Office Management Group

Case was remanded to Establishment Division with direction that civil servant should be considered for induction to Office Management Group without discrimination.

1995 PLC(CS) 963 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

ESTACODE, 1989, p. 1041, para. 4Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII 1974), S. 10Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199Constitutiot petitionEntitlement to be appointed/posted as Deputy Commissioner in one of the major Districts

Provisions of ESTACODE on which petitioner had placed reliance clearly stated that post of Deputy Commissioner being a selection post, petitioner could not claim as a matter of right, in spite of the fact that he had initially been selected in D.M.G. (District Management Group)

Transfer and posting of civil servant was in the discretion of concerned Government

As for field posting of petitioner, he was not found fit for such posting for wherever, he had been posted during the span of his service there were allegations of serious nature against him and criminal cases had been registered against him a list whereof was placed on record by private respondents who had been impleaded at their own request to facilitate the Court in arriving at correct decision regarding relief claimed by the petitioner

Post of Deputy Commissioner being sensitive one and pivotal in the administration, person found fit for the same could be appointed thereto, whereas. in every posting in whatever department there were serious allegations of corruption, malpractices etc. against petitioner

High Court took note of the fact that cases registered against petitioner and inquiries conducted against him should have been decided one way or the other

High Court also noted with concern that in spite of such serious allegations against petitioner he continued to serve in his home Province

High Court, however, left it to the discretion of Chief Secretary of the Province and the Establishment Secretary of the Federal Government to do the needful

As far petitioner's entitlement to be posted as Deputy Commissioner, he had failed to make out a case of mala fides or discrimination, therefore, he was not entitled to relief claimed by him.

1995 PLC(CS) 805 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S. 8ESTACODE (1989), p. 225SeniorityAppellant an Assistant in Federal Public Service Commission

Preferred appeal for determination of his seniority vis-a-vis respondent No. 3 and also respondents 4, 5 and 6 to whom he had not impleaded

Grounds urged by appellant were that his promotion as Assistant was regularised earlier than date of regularisation of adhoc appointment of entitling respondent as Assistant and that appellant being the promotee of the same year was entitled to priority in seniority over direct recruits of same year in accordance with general rules and principles of seniority and in no case such respondent could reckon seniority on basis of his adhoc appointment

Promotion of appellant as an Assistant was regularised with effect from 1-6-1984; whereas adhoc appointment of respondent was made with effect from 20-4-1982 was regularised with effect from 9-1-1984

Promotion of appellant to post of Assistant and the regular appointment of respondents as Assistant took place in same year i.e. 1984 and appointments of respondents were earlier in time than promotion of appellant

Appellant was however placed above the respondents in the seniority list circulated in the year 1987 on the basis of general principles of seniority

No evidence was produced to prove that post to which appellant was promoted as Assistant on regular basis was available for promotion from any earlier date

Respondents thus, stood senior to appellant and appeal was also not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties

1992 SCMR 989 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.9 & 8Esta Code (1989), Annexure I to O.M. No.l/16/69-D II, dated 31-12-1970'Regular promotion"DefinitionPromotees and their claim to senioritySeniority being not vested right, provision of-S.9 of the Act would govern along with general principles of seniorityRegular promotion under S.9 could take place against the reserved quota alone

Promotee could not' claim seniority in the higher promoted grade.

1989 PLC(CS) 134 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

Rr.3 & 6Estacode (1983), p. 341Proceedings against civil servant

Original punishing authority cannot revise its own order but an appellate authority can order retrial of case on ground of flaw in procedure only in receipt of an appeal from appellant.