The Court believes that administrative inefficiency, poor governance or inaction cannot be used to deny legal rights
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has held that promotion is a natural and integral incident of public service and that every eligible civil servant has a legitimate expectation of being considered for advancement within a reasonable time frame.
The court also held that administrative inefficiency, poor governance or inaction could not be used to deny legitimate service rights as it restored the promotion of an officer from the date of the first meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held in 2012.
A three-member bench comprising Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim allowed the civil petition of Fakhar Majeed, a draftsman with the Punjab Irrigation Department, setting aside a February 16, 2024 order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which had dismissed his appeal.
The Court declared that the petitioner would be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Reporter (BPS-14) with effect from 21st January, 2012.
The judgment was written by Justice Ayesha A Malik and spanned seven pages. The court converted the civil petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the tribunal had failed to understand the unjustified deprivation of the petitioner’s promotion despite his eligibility.
Fakhar Majeed was appointed to the Punjab Irrigation Department in October 1999.
As per the record, he was assigned the duties of ensign on a running charge basis from December 2008 onwards under Rule 10(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service), 1974.
He continued to perform duties in the senior position for several years through repeated extensions before being formally promoted in May 2019 following a DPC meeting held on 4 May 2019.
The petitioner claimed that he had become eligible for regular promotion as early as 2010 when there were vacancies and that his case should have been heard at the first DPC convened in January 2012. However, his case was not placed before the Committee and no explanation was given for this omission.
The Punjab government defended the tribunal’s decision by relying on Section 8(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, arguing that promotion could be given only with immediate effect and not from the date of availability of a vacancy.
The Assistant Solicitor General maintained that promotion was not a vested right and that retroactive promotion was barred by statute.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the facts of the case did not fall within the ambit of Section 8(3) as the petitioner had continuously held the position on a current tax basis since 2008.
