' JAVED IQBAL, J.---The claim of petitioner regarding pro forma promotion w,e,f, 23-3-1999 when Mr. Muhammad Zafar Abbasi, junior to him was promoted on acting charge basis as D.F.O. Has been rejected by the department by means of order dated 20-7-1999 which has been kept intact by learned Punjab Service Tribunal vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.
2. Heard the petitioner in person who mainly contended that Mr. Muhammad Zafar Abbasi though promoted on acting charge basis as D.F.O. Yet continued to perform as such for 13 years which amounts to regular promotion and being senior to him the petitioner could not have been denied such right and is entitled to be granted pro forma promotion. The grievance of the petitioner apparently seems genuine that the promotion on acting charge basis should not have been continued for more than a decade and it may be treated as regular promotion but during this period the question of seniority was not finally resolved and the petitioner was declared senior by means of notification dated 16-6-1997 and prior to that the petitioner had no genuine grievance. It is, however, to he noted that promotion on acting charge. Basis of Mr. Muhammad Zafar Abbasi was never challenged by the petitioner even after determination of seniority. The petitioner kept silent for more than two years for the reasons best known to him. Now after his retirement probably it would. Be too late in the day to get his grievance redressed as admittedly the promotion on acting charge basis cannot be equated to that of a regular promotion which could have been made in the exigency of service but it should not be for an indefinite period as has been done in this case. The petitioner, however, could not claim pro forma promotion w,e,f, 25-10-1987 as the question of seniority was determined on 16-6-1997 and no effort worth the name was made by the petitioner to challenge the acting charge promotion of Mr. Muhammad Zafar Abbasi. The learned Service Tribunal has dilated upon all the contentions raised before this Court and decided the same by a well-reasoned judgment, relevant portion whereof reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference is:-- "3. I have heard the arguments from both sides. There is considerable force in the arguments of the learned District Attorney that the appeal has not come to the Punjab Service Tribunal with clean hands. The appellant did not object to the acting charge position of the Respondent No,2 Muhammad Zafar Abbasi for more than 2 (between 16-6-1997 and 20-7-1999) when his seniority stood re-determined. He filed representation on 20-7-1999 when he already stood retired from service be reaching the age of superannuation. There is always time limit for claiming any service benefit. As rightly upheld by the Supreme Court 1998 SCM R 882) no appellant has unfettered choice to file a representation/appeal irrespective of the time limit. Secondly, an executive authority has the liberty to make an administrative or stop-gap arrangement in the exigencies of service like current charge/acting charge basis which do not confer any right of regular promotion on the concerned civil servants. The nature of such appointment cannot be considered of regular promotion/appointment. Moreover, respondent No,2 was appointed on acting charge basis when the seniority position of the appellant was not determined and on this ground alone the appellant cannot claim pro forma promotion from the date of acting charge appointment of Respondent No,2."
3. The conclusion as arrived at by learned Service Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law and no jurisdictional flaw or legal infirmity could be pointed out by the petitioner warranting interference in the judgment impugned. Besides that no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave could be granted. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.