' MUHAMMAD AFZAL, (MEMBER-I).---Through this appeal, the appellant, who is Ex-Director, Agriculture (Research) on current charge basis, claims pro forma promotion to BS-19 w.e.f. 1-7-1987 and attendant service benefits. He made representation dated 15-8-2003, but as the same was not decided within statutory period, he has come up with the present appeal in this Tribunal.
'
2. As per facts relevant to the present appeal, appellant, who belongs to Research cadre of Agriculture department had long drawn out dispute of seniority with other officers of Research Wings. This dispute was finally resolved through judgment dated 4-1-2001 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CPLA No.2301-L of 2000. Accordingly, a revised seniority list of BS-18 officers of Agriculture Research Wing was finalized and notified. The appellant has been granted pro forma promotion through order dated 20-3-2002, to BS-18 w.e.f. 1-6-1973. In consequence of grant of pro forma promotion to BS-18, the case of the appellant for regular promotion to BS-19 from the date' it was due was taken up by the concerned authority and placed in the Provincial Selection Board (PSB) on 9-7-2003. The Provincial Selection Board deferred the case with the following observations:- "Item may be deferred till be administrative department gets the rules governing the post of Director Agriculture (Research) amended by incorporating the post of Food Technologist along with other posts indicated in the Punjab Agriculture Department (Research Wing) Service Rules, 1980."
' The department re-submitted the case of the appellant after complying with the observations of the PSB on 19-12-2003, but the case could not be placed in the meeting of PSB and in the meantime, appellant retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 24-12-2003.
3. Appellant is present in person. He states that as he has been allowed pro forma promotion to BS- 18 w.e.f. 1-6-1973, he was entitled to further benefits including move-over to BS-19 w.e.f. 1-12-1984, regular promotion to BS-19 w.e.f. 1-7-1987 i.e. w.e.f: the date his junior Ch. Muhammad Afzal was so promoted as Director Agriculture Research (Bahawalpur) and also move-over to BS-20 w.e.f. 1-12- 1990 and further promotion to BS-20 on regular basis. The appellant also maintains that in spite of his retirement on superannuation, his claim for back dated promotion to BS-19 and move-over to BS-19 and 20 remained alive. It is next pointed out by the appellant that the PSB had raised frivolous objections regarding amendments in the service rules, whereas it was a straight and plain case of pro forma promotion and the appellant could not be deprived of promotion to BS-19 as Director Agriculture (Research) since the post to which he is claiming pro forma promotion, did exist and moreover, any amendment in the service rules if made subsequently, could not deprive him of the lawful claim to pro forma promotion in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in consequence of which he was earlier granted pro forma promotion to BS-18 under revised seniority. He has placed reliance on PLD 1988 SC 36 and 1990 SCM R 1321 and PLD 1977 SC 351 in that context.
4. Appeal is opposed by the respondents mainly on the ground that promotion including pro forma promotion could not be claimed as of right by a civil servant and that under the rules promotion was not vested right. It is also averred that the appellant had already retired and being no more in service, he had ceased to be a civil servant and, therefore, his case could not be considered for pro forma promotion to BS-19 from the date his junior was so promoted. It is next maintained that no intentional delay was caused on the part of the respondents in processing the case of the appellant for promotion to BS-19 and as the appellant had since retired further processing of his case was given up.
5. We "have carefully considered contentions from both sides. We find that the main objection of the respondents against the claim of the appellant for pro forma promotion is that he had ceased to be a civil servant and that promotion could not be claimed as of right. We find that in terms of section 2(b) of Punjab Service Tribunal Act a "Civil servant" has been defined as a person, who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province or who has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province. The appellant had held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province before his retirement on superannuation. The fact is admitted by the respondents that the case of the appellant for promotion to BS-19 was taken up and was also once placed before Provincial Selection Board. The appellant had no control on his retirement on superannuation. If delay was caused in granting promotion to the appellant by the PSB, responsibility for that dealy did not lie on the appellant. Moreover, we find that pro forma promotion to BS-19 was an essential follow up action in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Appellant was entitled to receive pro forma promotion to BS-19 from the date this promotion was allowed to his junior in 1987 in the same way as he was allowed pro forma promotion to BS-18 in the light of revised seniority list under the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Having been placed at proper place in,,the seniority list at the end of his long drawn-out fight in litigation, made him undisputably entitled to pro forma promotion to -BS-19 from the date it was so due. No doubt, ordinarily promotion cannot be claimed as a vested right, but when promotion is allowed earlier to junior and not allowed to the senior from the same date, then the right to be considered for pro forma promotion cannot be refused. Therefore, we repel the plea taken by the respondents that the appellant after having retired, could not claim pro forma promotion. The fact that the appellant had been continuously performing functions as Director Agriculture (Research) on current charge basis when he retired, further his claim for regular promotion to BS-19 and consequential benefits. Moreover, we find that no proposal for future amendment in the service rules could strip a civil servant of his lawful claim to promotion from particular (back) date to which he was entitled under the rules operative at that time.
6. For the reasons given above, appeal is accepted to the extent that the appellant shall be considered for grant of pro forma promotion to BS-19 from the date his junior Ch. Muhammad Afzal was so promoted in 1987. Appellant shall also be considered for grant of move-over to BS-19 and to BS-20 from the dates, these benefits become due in accordance with rules and the conditions prescribed for the grant of such benefits.