Civil Services

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2023 recruitment rules which categorized the position in question as promotion-based, meaning direct "upgradation" was no longer applicable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.

Compliance report as well as written statement submitted by the official respondents showed that they (official respondents) were bent upon to fill posts in question through promotions from the other employees of the department and in said regard they had initiated proceedings and convened meetings secretly, which depicted that they had admitted the version of the petitioner regarding availability of the posts relating to the direct quota of appointment but they were not taking any steps to advertise the same for induction in accordance with rules and were delaying the matter unnecessarily

Record (of another writ petition previously filed by someone else) revealed that official respondents in the said proceedings had themselves admitted that 02 vacant posts of Section Officers relating to the direct quota of recruitment were vacant in the department

There was nothing to prolong the mater and to avoid the process of law on the part of the respondents because the petitioner had sufficiently proved the availability of the posts

Act of the respondents regarding non-advertisement of the posts for direct recruitment indicated that they were bent upon to fill in the posts in question through promotion

Thus, both the posts were liable to be advertised forthwith against the quota of direct recruitment

High Court directed the official respondents to advertise 02 vacant posts of Section Officer BPS-17 for permanent induction against the quota reserved for direct recruitment within 01 month; and till the permanent induction of the said posts, petitioner shall not be relieved or disturbed

Writ petition was allowed accordingly.

Preparation of ACR/PER relates to the efficiency and discipline of a civil / Government servant, which is the function of the reporting officer

Prima facie, the evaluation reports play a vital role in considering the case of promotion

However, the promotion depends upon eligibility, fitness and availability of vacancy.

Waiting list candidates can claim appointment within the validity period of waiting list if any selected candidate either does not join the post or leaves the same after joining

Candidates on a waiting list have no right to use the "waiting list" as an open license to hunt the post anywhere at any time

Candidates on a waiting list are only for the purpose of contingency and nothing beyond that

Candidates on a waiting list have no vested right of appointment even in case the principal nominee does not joint the post

In present case too, the appointment of a candidate on waiting list was subject to recommendation of the relevant department and approval of the competent authority

Waiting list prepared after a recruitment process was relevant and admissible to the post of said recruitment alone and waiting list of candidates was not valid to the newly created post even if the said posts are created during the validity period of waiting list

Newly created posts were to be filled through a transparent method of appointment according to the relevant rules

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Promotion involves advancement in rank, grade or a footstep en route to a higher position, whereas the facility or benefit of upgradation simply confers some monetary benefits by granting a higher pay scale to ventilate sufferings which is a translucent distinction between the two genres

Upgradation under a scheme is personal to the incumbents of a particular post for sufficient length of service without any progression or avenue of promotion

In the case of upgradation, the candidate continues to hold the same post without any change in his duties but he is accorded a higher pay scale in order to lessen the distress or misery as a result of stagnation.

Petitioner was placed at Serial No. 11 of the merit list wherein it was mentioned that the list was effective for six months

Candidates falling at Serial Nos. 1 and 10 were appointed as teachers; the candidates at Serial Nos. 6 and 8 were initially appointed but on indication of fake degrees they resigned from the job whereas candidates falling at Serial Nos. 2, 5, 7 and 9 of the merit list were appointed

Respondents adjusted the petitioner on temporary basis of which petitioner was aggrieved and sought direction for his permanent adjustment

Contention of department was that the petitioner had failed to bring his grievance before the competent authority within prescribed period of his permanent appointment in the light of merit, therefore, his claim at belated stage could not be entertained

Validity

Petitioner could not be blamed for procrastination on the part of official respondents

Department was duty bound to redress the grievance of the petitioner when the posts had fallen vacant due to indication of fake degrees

When the petitioner had applied for open competition against a vacant post and had come up to the mark thus a valuable right had created in his favour which could not be snatched by way of procrastination

Constitutional petition was accepted and the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner against the post of Junior Clerk in the light of his meritorious position.

Seniority with retrospective effect cannot be conferred unless such right was established.

Department invited applications for appointment against different posts including Assistant Scientific Officer (Hakeem) BPS 16

Applicant was required to have a domicile of Punjab and be 28 years of age on the closing date for submission of applications

Appellant was 39 years of age when he applied for the post

Appellant was appointed against the post by giving him general age relaxation of 5 years under the Establishment Division Office Memorandum dated 24-06-2010 in addition to age relaxation of 10 years under the Establishment Division's Notification dated 04-11-1993

Respondent challenged appellant's appointment by filing writ petition which was allowed

Validity

Age relaxation of 10 years under the later notification could only be extended to government servants who had completed 2 years of continuous government service on the closing date for receipt of applications

Benefit under the said notification only applied to the Federal Government servants who had completed 2 years of continuous service in the Federal Government

Appellant was not employee of Federal Government rather he had completed his two years of service in Provincial Government, therefore, benefit of age relaxation of 15 years granted by department to the appellant was unlawful

Appeal was dismissed.

Civil servant facing expulsive proceedings on departmental side on account of his indictment on criminal charge may not save his job in the event of acquittal as the department still may have reasons/material, to conscionably consider his stay in the service as inexpedient

Additional reasons may exist to disregard such acquittal inasmuch as criminal dispensation of justice involving corporeal consequences, comparatively, required a higher standard of proof so as to drive home the charge beyond doubt

Procedural loopholes or absence of evidence at times resulted in failure to sustain the charge essentially to maintain safe administration of criminal justice out of abundant caution

Departmental jurisdiction, on the other hand, could assess the suitability of a civil servant, confronted with a charge through a fact finding method, somewhat inquisitorial in nature without heavier procedural riders, otherwise required in criminal jurisdiction to eliminate any potential risk of error.

Petitioners qualified written test but their candidature was rejected on the ground that they had failed to submit Registration Certificate from Pakistan Medical and Dental Council before cut-off date for receiving application

Validity

Grievance of petitioners was not with regard to their terms and conditions of service but they had sought relief of appointment

Constitutional petition was not barred under Art.212 of the Constitution and was maintainable

Authorities had processed the scrutiny of documents of the petitioners after written test and no illegality had been found therein

Petitioners were provisionally allowed to appear in the examination for the post in question and their eligibility was to be determined after professional test

Registration Certificates in favour of petitioners had been issued from Pakistan Medical and Dental Council before cut-off date for receiving applications

Mere submission of documents with Public Service Commission with a delay did not disqualify a candidate to appear in the interview

Constitutional jurisdiction was meant to foster the cause of justice and fair play

Petitioners had made out a case for their participation in the interview to be conducted by the Public Service Commission

Public Service Commission was directed to allow the petitioners to participate in the interview for the post of Medical Officers and if they did qualify in the interview then their result be announced accordingly

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Orders of the competent authority as well as departmental appeal were on the basis that they agreed with the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer; they had not scrutinized the evidence available on the file themselves, but awarded major penalty of dismissal from service by relying upon the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer and ignored the fact that no specific allegation through evidence was proved against the respondent-civil servant

Prosecution was duty bound to prove the allegations for which the respondent was charge sheeted

Service Tribunal had rightly reinstated the respondent in service

Appeal was dismissed.

Mere fact that despite commission of the offence no loss was caused to the Government exchequer or the loss caused was recovered could not be a mitigating factor in punishing a government servant whose misconduct stood established.

Case of petitioner was with regard to regularization of his service which was de-regularized by means of order in question

Contract employee could not claim any vested right even for regularization of his service

High Court declined to interfere in de-regularization order passed against petitioner as constitutional petition was not maintainable in law

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Family pension scheme was in the nature of welfare scheme by the Government to provide relief to the widow and minor children of deceased civil servant

Beneficiaries of such scheme were the persons who were 'family' of such deceased civil servant

Petitioner had obtained a decree of khula from Family Court and after divorce her status in law could not be recognized as a wife to claim status of 'family' for grant of family pension

Family of civil servant did include wife/husband, minor sons and unmarried daughter

Divorced wife of civil servant was not eligible for family pension

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Whether seniority of such civil servant was to be reckoned from date of his absorption in the new department or date of his initial appointment in his original department

Respondent was appointed as Preventive Officer (BS-11) in Customs House, whereas civil servant 'S' was working as Inspector (BS-11) in Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise

Both being in the Customs department holding posts in equal grade made a request for mutual transfer, which was accepted and the respondent was permanently absorbed as Inspector Customs, while "S" was absorbed as Preventive Officer

Held, that paragraph 6 of instructions contained in Serial No. 30, Chapter III, Part II of Estacode (1989 edition) clearly provided that where a person was transferred to another office in a situation where it was open to him to accept or refuse such transfer, his seniority was to be reckoned from the date of his transfer to the new office

Only exception to such rule was contained in paragraph 6(i)(b), which stated that where a person was compulsorily transferred to another office then he was allowed to count his service in the previous office towards his seniority in his new office

In the present case, the respondent sought his transfer to his new office on his own volition on the basis of mutual consent with another officer of the same grade; he was not compulsorily transferred at the instance of the department, hence the recognized practice contained in paragraph 6(i)(a) of Serial No. 30, Chapter III, Part II of Estacode (1989 edition) clearly disentitled him to count his previous service towards seniority in the new office

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal was set aside.

Notification for appointment of petitioners was held in abeyance by the department till the decision of cases of other candidates with regard to age relaxation by the Provincial Government

Validity

Employees in case of violation of terms and conditions of service could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Keeping of appointment notification/order in abeyance did not fall within the purview of "terms and conditions" of service of petitioners and such order was abuse of authority and powers

Department had not dealt the petitioners in accordance with law

If something was wrong on the part of petitioners-employees, they were to be issued charge sheet or explanation letter in accordance with Rules

Authorities could not act in violation of the provisions of Constitution and law of the land

Department had no lawful authority and jurisdiction to hold the notification/order of appointment of employees in abeyance

Impugned order was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Teachers of prison department seeking up-gradation of post at par with their counterpart working in the education department

Equality before law

Scope

Contention of petitioners-employees was that government had time and again upgraded the posts of employees working in the education department and petitioners had been discriminated

Validity

Petitioners-employees were performing same functions having same qualification and job description as the teachers of education department

When no difference with regard to qualifications, duties, functions and responsibilities existed then denying them similar treatment/perks and privileges as available to other set of employees working in education department would offend the principle of equality

Petitioners were directed by the High Court to be given the same grade and treatment as had been given to the similarly placed employees of education department

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioners were contract employees and had been appointed for a specific project; they had accepted the terms and condition of appointment before joining the service

Project employee could not claim employment beyond the period of completion of project

Contract employee even if dismissed from service could only claim damages to the extent of unexpired period of his service

Project employee could not claim even relief of allowing him for performance of remaining period of contract by reinstatement

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Civil servant violating his/her code of conduct by posting/broadcasting material on social media critical of his/her department, the Government and members of Parliament

Effect

Termination of employment

[Australian] Public Service Code of Conduct ("the Code") included a requirement under S. 13(11) of the Public Service Act, 1999 ('the 1999 Act') that public service employees at all times behave in a way that upheld the values, integrity and good reputation of public service; that public service was apolitical, performing its functions in an impartial and professional manner [section 10(1) of the 1999 Act]; and that an Agency Head of a government department could impose sanctions on a public service employee found to have breached the Code, including termination of employment [section 15(1) of the 1999 Act]

Question as to whether Ss. 10(1), 13(11) & 15(1) of the 1999 Act imposed effective burden on implied freedom of political communication, and whether said provisions served a legitimate purpose

Held, that impugned provisions of the 1999 Act had a purpose consistent with the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government, namely the maintenance of an apolitical public service

Impugned provisions were reasonably appropriate and adapted to or were proportionate to their purpose and accordingly did not impose an unjustified burden on the implied freedom of political communication

Implied freedom of political communication was not a personal right of free speech; it was a restriction on legislative power

Such freedom extended only as far as necessary to preserve and protect the system of representative and responsible government mandated by the Constitution.

Home Department had also forwarded a summary for creation/up-gradation of various posts including posts of Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent 'Prison Department' to the Chief Minister and same had been approved

Authorities had not implemented the orders of competent authority for up-gradation of various posts of Jail Department which was mala fide on their part

Method of appointment for the posts of Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent had been prescribed on the basis of 50% by initial recruitment and 50% by promotion which was contrary to the recruitment and Promotion Rules of Prisons Department framed in other Provinces

Inspector General of Prisons had forwarded revised draft of Recruitment Rules for approval of competent authority but same had not been processed

Said draft was in conformity with the Recruitment Rules of Prisons Departments of rest of the country

Authorities were directed to approve the revised draft recommended by the Inspector General of Prisons without any further delay and up-grade the posts of Prisons Department on the analogy of Prisons Department of Government of Punjab with immediate effect

Writ petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Authorities in pursuance of order passed in an earlier constitutional petition afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner employee and promoted him as Senior Vice President with effect from 01-05-2006

Employee received arrears of pay accrued to him in pursuance of his promotion without any protest and objection

Petitioner had accepted his promotion with his free will and consent from 01-05-2006

Nothing was left to be claimed by the employee qua his promotion

Petitioner's contention that he was to be promoted with effect from 01-12-2002 and not from 01-05-2006 had no weight as same was hit by principle of estoppel

Employee had not disclosed that he had sought promotion through constitutional petition which was dismissed and civil petition for leave to appeal against the same was pending before the Supreme Court

Employee had not approached the Court with clean hands and was not entitled to any relief

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Employee of the Bank filed constitutional petition seeking cost of living allowance as an emolument for the purpose of pensionary benefits in the light of notification of Federal Government to its employees but same was dismissed

Validity

General direction and superintendence of the affairs and business of nationalized Banks would vest in the Board of Directors

Board of Directors had powers to determine policy of the Bank, policy matters and all matters with regard to remuneration and benefits of the employees

Management of nationalized Banks was free from the control and general superintendence of the Federal Government

Federal Government was no longer empowered to give directions to the nationalized Banks with regard to areas in which Board of Bank could deal or pass decisions

Any decision taken by the Board and notification issued by the Bank in pursuance of and with regard to matters covered by S.11 of Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 had statutory force

National Bank of Pakistan had made the cost of living allowance to be not part of emoluments for the purposes of calculation of pension and recovery of house rent

Said notification of the Bank had overturned and superseded the Circular with regard to changes and revision in the rates and scales of pension and gratuity made by the Federal Government to be applicable to the officers/executives of National Bank of Pakistan

Office memorandum issued by Finance Division of Federal Government for treating the cost of living allowance as an emolument for the purpose of pensionary benefits could not be made applicable to the employees of National Bank of Pakistan

Judgment of Service Tribunal was not applicable to the case of petitioner as National Bank of Pakistan was not party to the said proceedings

Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Employee had not alleged violation of any of his legal right which was guaranteed by the Rules and Regulations of department

Petitioner had only agitated that he had been discriminated by the department in the matter of up-gradation of his post while said benefit had been extended to the similarly placed employees of the same department

Prayer in the constitutional petition did not come within the ambit of terms and conditions of employee's service

Mere difference of nomenclature of posts did not disentitle the petitioner-employee from the same benefit which had been granted to similarly placed employees of the same department

Petitioner had been discriminated by the department which was not permitted under Art.25 of the Constitution

Similarly placed persons must be treated alike and creation of distinction must be based on intelligible differential having nexus with the object of the law

When qualification for both the posts was same and both the officials were performing same duties then petitioner could not be treated differently

Principle of 'equal pay for equal work' had been built in Art.3 of the Constitution

Employee had been deprived of the right of up-gradation without any justifiable reason or ground

Department was directed to grant the petitioner same scale as had been granted to similarly placed person from the date when he became eligible for the same

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Where a seat allocated to a particular quota was not taken and fell vacant after the training had commenced then it was carried forward to the next competitive examination as a vacancy available against the same quota

Statement of allocation of vacancies for Competitive Examinations-2011 showed that in each group vacancies were to be created on merit quota, women's quota and minorities' quota, depending upon the sufficiency of the 'fraction' available for each of the three categories

Where a vacancy was created for a particular quota of the group, if the candidate to whom it was allocated failed to avail it then it was to be filled by a candidate of the same category and, could not be allocated to a candidate who was eligible from any of the remaining two categories

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Service Tribunal had ordered for de novo inquiry to be completed within three months but department failed to conclude the same within the time given by the Tribunal

Effect

Employee was issued charge-sheet after a lapse of about ten months from the judgment of Service Tribunal

Department was bound to implement the judgment of Tribunal in letter and spirit within the time given

Failure of department to implement the judgment within time, would result that proceedings thereafter would be void

No reason or justification had been put forward by the department for the delay in conducting of de novo proceedings

Directions of Service Tribunal had become law

When law required a thing to be done in a particular manner, it would be nullity in the eye of law if not performed in that very prescribed manner

Department was bound to have performed in the manner in which competent court of law had issued the directions

Public functionaries were supposed to act upon and execute/implement the judgment of court of law to maintain the rule of law and supremacy of justice

Proceedings initiated by the department were set aside in circumstances

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Suspension of civil servant during the course of his service would mean that no work was to be taken from him during the period of suspension

Suspension was only a temporary measure wherein employee was entitled to receive his full emoluments

Service Tribunals had been constituted having exclusive jurisdiction in the matter to look into and decide the question with regard to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant

Employee had an alternate efficacious remedy by approaching the departmental appellate authority and then the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was barred in circumstances

Constitutional petition was dismissed being not maintainable.

Department refused to take joining of petitioner and petitioner filed constitutional petition against such refusal which was disposed of with the direction to the department to decide the application of petitioner

Petitioner was summoned for re-measurement of his height along with record but he filed yet another constitutional petition which was dismissed

Validity

Petitioner had concealed facts which could be taken into consideration

Previous wrong decisions on the basis of said concealment of facts could be curable at belated stage

Petitioner had remained unable to prove his case

Person could not have vested right for a post against which he did not fulfill the requirement/ criteria

No illegality had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge of High Court

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Employee-petitioner after having clearance report was promoted who took charge of the post but his promotion was rescinded afterwards

Contention of department was that disciplinary proceedings were in progress against the employee-petitioner and he could not be promoted

Validity

Show cause notices were issued after one month of clearance report and few days prior to departmental promotion committee meeting

Mala fide was on record on the part of department to disentitle the employee-petitioner from his promotion

Had there been any complaints against the employee-petitioner then show cause notices might have been issued to him earlier

Nothing was on record that show cause notices were received by the employee-petitioner

No disciplinary proceedings were pending against the employee-petitioner when his clearance report was submitted for consideration of promotion

Mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings against any person or even imposing of minor penalties could not debar the promotion of civil servant

Employee-petitioner's promotion could not be deferred on the basis of allegations contained in the show cause notices

Impugned notification was illegal and without lawful authority which could not sustain

Employee-petitioner had been promoted after due course of law

Promotion order not be rescinded without giving proper opportunity of defence to the employee-petitioner

Department was required to issue show cause notice to the employee-petitioner for recalling of promotion order

No notice prior to rescinding promotion order was given to the employee-petitioner

No one should be condemned unheard

Impugned notification had been issued in violation of law which was liable to be struck down on such score alone

Promotion order had been implemented which could not be reverted without affording opportunity of defense

Impugned order was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Question before the High Court was as to whether the law provided for permanent absorption of the petitioner, who was with the rank of Rear Admiral, after his retirement from the Naval Services

In terms of Sl.231 and 231-A of ESTACODE, 2007, Vol. I, pages 344 and 349, paragraph No.18, the officers above the rank of Lt. Col. and above (as was the case of the petitioner) were eligible for re-employment on contract for 3 to 5 years only; however, such a contract could be renewed up to the age of 60 years

Summary had been sent and approval of the Prime Minister had been sought for re-employment or absorption of the petitioner in accordance with Joint Services Instructions (JSI) 4/85, which dealt with the terms and conditions of service of the Armed Forces Officers

Section 2 of said JSI dealt with the tenure of such officers, which showed that the recommendations were initially for offering employment to the officer for a period of up to 3 years; however in exceptional circumstances, such period could be extended by one year

Sl.No.214, paragraph V of ESTACODE dealt with the induction of commissioned officers in secondment viz-a-viz their respective tenure were identical with the respective provisions contained in JSI 4/85

Appointment of the petitioner having been in accordance with JSI 4/85 as well as Sl.No.214 (b) of ESTACODE and the both having been pari materia provisions, no possibility existed that the petitioner could have been inducted permanently on his secondment after his retirement from the Naval Service

In order to take the benefit of the principle of locus poenitentiae, the employee had to have a vested right in the job, which had accrued by issuance of appointment letter and not before and any award of benefit to a person in violation of law would not attract principle of locus poenitentiae; whereas, in present case, the appointment letter issued to the petitioner was the Notification dated 28.09.2012 offering the post on contract basis, which had been duly accepted by the petitioner; thus the said Notification had formed the basis of the petitioner's service

Board's resolution was a proposal, and no vested rights could have accrued to the petitioner merely from the proposal made in said Board's resolution

Petitioner had been appointed on contract basis for a specific term which he had completed; therefore no vested right could be claimed by him keeping in view of the terms of his contractual engagement

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of employee was that neither he was examined nor allowed to cross-examine the representative of the management

Validity

No defense witness was produced by the employee and complainant Bank did not cross-examine him

Reply of employee was disregarded by the Bank and defense was not considered

No examination-in-chief or cross-examination was recorded in the inquiry

Such defect in inquiry proceedings was sufficient to declare entire process as sham and distrustful

Right of fair trial was a Fundamental Right by dint of which a person was entitled to a fair trial and due process of law

Employee had been deprived of his indispensable Fundamental Right of fair trial

Impugned order of dismissal of employee was set aside and he was reinstated in service with back benefits

High Court observed that Bank could conduct de novo inquiry but should conclude the same within two months

If inquiry was conducted, ample opportunity should be provided to the employee to defend the charges

Payment of back benefit amount would be subject to the final outcome of the de novo inquiry if any

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

Employee had no right either to claim the post or a right to withdraw his resignation which had already become effective

Employee could not withdraw his resignation after it was accepted by the competent authority

Resignation must be voluntarily tendered expressing a desire to quit service

Nothing was on record that employee did not tender his resignation voluntarily or he was coerced into tendering his resignation

Intra-court appeal of employee was dismissed in circumstances.

Prime Minister on the summary for fresh recruitment by the competent authority granted approval and fresh applications for appointments were invited

Validity

No reason had been assigned for fresh appointments when earlier candidates were put to written test and interviewed and they were recommended for appointment

Persons who participated in recruitment process though had spent huge amount, undertook journey, made preparation and appeared in written test as well as interview but no right had accrued in their favour as no letter of appointment had been issued as yet, however, when no reason had been assigned when process of recruitment was at final stage, then initiation of process for fresh recruitment was illegal

Petitioners had made out a strong case

Authorities were directed to initiate process of recruitment form the stage where they left it on imposing ban and then finally announce the result of successful candidates

Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.

Contention of Civil Servant was that time was consumed due to administrative orders passed by the Registrar of the Chief Court and the Service Tribunal, which could not be counted against the petitioner

Advocate-General conceded that Chief Court was to hear the case and decide the same on merits in accordance with law and also supported the contensions raised by the petitioner/civil servant

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed

Case was remanded to the Chief Court for its de novo consideration by hearing afresh and decided the same on its merits within two months.

Entire process commencing with the advertisement in newspaper and ending with the final selection and posting of the respondents, was a process of appointment to the post of officer and out of a large number of successful candidates, only 30 were inducted, as there were only such number of vacancies, however, the Bank instead of issuing appointment letters to the respondents made them sign contracts, which were clearly in conflict with the bank's promise of job to the eligible and selected candidates

Respondents were posted at various places in the Bank as 'trainees' but were, entrusted duties and functions as were discharged and performed by officers of the Bank

Not confirming/regularizing services of respondents would be unfair

Fresh recruitment by the Bank in place of the respondents was also against the interest of the Bank as the same would be an expensive exercise in terms of time, money and effort

Respondents since their induction had been performing their job satisfactorily, and were acclimatized with the working of the Bank

Signing of contracts by respondents, could not be allowed to be used as an obstructive instrument in their way of confirmation/regularization, especially because of the non-equilibrium between the bargaining position of the respondents and the Bank

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Result of disciplinary proceedings was not bound by or dependent upon the outcome of criminal proceedings initiated for the same wrongful act against the same accused officer

Rationale for such rule was founded upon the subjective element present in disciplinary proceedings that concerned the suitability and the fitness of an accused officer to remain in government service when he had not been acquitted on the merits of the charge alleged against him.

Candidate who stood first on the merit list for the subject of Pharmacology did not join the service/post nor did she send any intimation declining the offer

Petitioner who was the alternate nominee of the said candidate, was not recommended for the post by the competent authority, inter alia on the ground that the reserve list was valid for only six months but the Health Ministry intimated petitioner's alternate nomination to the competent authority after expiry of such period

Validity

In terms of clause (d) of Office Memorandum, Establishment Division issued on 5-5-2010, the reserve list in the present case remained valid for a period of 10 months, and the petitioner had addressed letters to the competent authority (Federal Public Service Commission) within such time period to consider her as the alternate candidate for the post in question

Admittedly petitioner was eligible and qualified for the post in question, and the only dispute was with regard to lapse of time for approaching the competent authority by the Health Ministry

Such expiry of time was not attributable to the petitioner, and could not be counted against her to deprive her from the post in question, when she was otherwise found qualified, and till date the post was vacant and had not been re-advertised

Supreme Court directed the competent authority to allow the petitioner to join the post in question

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

When suitable candidates were not available within the organization/department then Government/Employer after amending the rules could advertise the post

Government/Employer was empowered to stipulate the qualification for any vacant post keeping in view the urgency and exigency of the matter with suitable reason for choosing the best among the contestants through fresh recruitment.

Leave either on full pay or half pay could not be treated as extraordinary leave.

Petitioners were aggrieved of quota set forth by the authorities for graduate and non-graduate engineers as well as mandatory condition of training and passing of Departmental Promotion Examination by the already registered engineers for induction in the "Upper Technical Staff" graduate-engineers in BPS-17

'Professional engineering work'

Determination and scope

Contentions of the petitioners were that they were entitled for promotion to BS-17 on the analogy of employees of PEPCO and WAPDA; that approval of conversion of 10 posts from `Matric quota' of UTS (BS-16) to 'Graduate quota' for the accommodation of qualified UTS as Junior Engineers in the Electric Company was illegal and against the law

Plea of the authorities was that Electric Supply Company being a separate entity, had no statutory rules and the rules adopted by the Electric Supply Company had been borrowed from WAPDA, thus, constitutional petition was not maintainable and petitioners were not entitled to claim the 'Special Graduate Allowance' as neither they were working in BPS-17, nor were the employees of WAPDA

Validity

Electric Supply Company was a separate legal entity having no statutory rules and its affairs were run and managed by its Board of Directors

Where terms and conditions of service of the employees of a statutory body were not regulated by rules/regulations framed under the statute, but only under the rules or instructions issued for its internal use, in such like situation, a writ normally could not be issued

Electric Supply Company, being a separate entity having its own Board of Directors for running of its management and affairs, was not ipso facto bound by the decisions of WAPDA and/or PEPCO until and unless the same were properly approved by the Board of Directors of the company

Petitioners were Company's employees in the capacities of Sub-Station Operators SSO-I, SSO-II and Line Superintendents (LS-I) in BPS-13

Upper Technical Subordinates (UTS) in the Company had been allocated 5% quota for promotion against the post of Assistant Junior Engineers, subject to the condition that the eligible candidates (UTS) must have undergone the mandatory training and passed Departmental Promotion Examination on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, which was a pre-requisite criteria for UTS to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade as per Promotion Policy of the Company; therefore, wish and desire of petitioners through induction besides misconceived was misleading

Petitioners, who are employees of Electric Supply Company and not of WAPDA, were absolutely not entitled to claim the release of the `Graduate Allowance' merely on the basis of WAPDA's letter as well as PEPCO's office order, which were not binding on the Company

Directives/instructions which were only applicable to the employees of PEPCO and/or WAPDA could not be stretched so long to cover the cases of the petitioners, who were employees of the Company and not of PEPCO and/or WAPDA

Merely on the ground that 'c.c.' had been forwarded to Electric Supply Company and others the same could not ipso facto be deemed binding

'Special Engineer Allowance' was only for 'Graduate Engineers' in BPS-17 and above, but as the petitioners were not 'Graduate Engineers' of BPS-17 and above, as such, none of them was entitled to claim the allowance

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Grievance of petitioner was that after issuance of appointment letter to petitioner, the Authority suspended the letter and did not take petitioner on duty

Plea of the Authority was that High Court could not exercise Constitutional Jurisdiction in the matter being hit by laches

Validity

Petition could be dismissed on such basis if looking at the totality of circumstances, Court was satisfied that petitioner had abandoned his claim

Rule that an aggrieved person was normally expected to approach High Court within three months was only a rule of convenience and ninety days period served merely as a referential point which was not to be applied as mandatory rule such as a period of limitation prescribed under law

Petitioner was actually an employee of the Authority that did not have statutory rules of service

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellant was aggrieved of order passed by single Judge of High Court declaring respondent to be entitled to proforma promotion with all back benefits

Validity

Conditions required to be fulfilled for being eligible to be considered by appointing authority in respect of benefits of proforma promotion were; (i) person must be a civil servant; (ii) he/she was entitled to promotion from a particular date and; (iii) was wrongfully prevented from rendering service to Federation in a higher post for no fault of his/ her

Only if the appointing authority was satisfied that such three conditions were met then a direction could be issued for extending benefits of pay and allowances through proforma promotion

Single Judge of High Court could not make a declaration regarding entitlement of respondent regarding proforma promotion, as the respondent had approached High Court by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction for implementing judgment passed by Federal Service Tribunal, which did not include any determination or direction regarding grant or entitlement of proforma promotion

Direction for extending benefits through proforma promotion was within the exclusive domain of appointing authority who had to be satisfied that the conditions were fulfilled for passing an order or direction

Division Bench of High Court set aside the order passed by Single Judge of High Court

Intra-court appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Non-civil servant could not be conferred the status of a civil servant.

Appointments were always prospective in nature notwithstanding the fact that the vacancy occurred earlier.

Merger of government departments did not by itself, amount to merger of cadres.

Where a question of law or fact had been decided by the Service Tribunal or the Supreme Court; it covered not only the case of the civil servants who litigated but also other civil servants who may have not taken part in such legal proceedings, and in such a case the rule of good governance demanded that benefit of such judgment by the Service Tribunal or the Supreme Court should be extended to other civil servants who may not have been parties to the litigation; instead of compelling them to approach the Service Tribunal or any other forum.

Illustration.

Absorption was not a vested right of an employee and the employer had the right and authority to terminate the deputation period or repatriate the employee back to his/her parent department.

Prescribed qualification for the purpose of regularization of service of a contract appointee should be that which was prevalent at the time of his appointment.

Pension was a post retirement benefit of a civil servant that was earned by a civil servant by giving the best years of his life in the service of the country

Such post retirement monetary allowance was geared to comfort and protect a civil servant in the post retirement days when he ordinarily had no other source of income, was infirm and of old age

Pension was therefore, the very life-line of a civil servant in post-retirement days and, therefore, an integral part of his livelihood and perhaps more dearer than the salary received during his service

Pension cannot be a static amount as it had to provide for the rising cost of living and escalating inflation which a retired civil servant had to face and survive in and therefore like salary, pension was a real time concept.