' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---By means of this order we propose to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.373 to 375 of 2003 as the same arise out of common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 26-12-2002.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are, that some employees of Habib Bank Ltd. Claimed promotion from the post of Assistant Vice-President to the post of Vice-President on averments that their juniors liave been promoted but they have been ignored. Representation submitted by them for redressal of their grievances were dismissed, as such initially they invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi. Bench and the I.C.A. No.8 of 1997 which was disposed of with the direction that if the representations of the appellants for their due promotion is pending, the same shall be decided expeditiously in any case by 15th of July, 1998 and subsequently the matter came up before the Service Tribunal for hearing who on 30-1-2001 dismissed the same. Feeling dissatisfied from this order they approached this Court by filing petitions for leave to appeal which was disposed of vide order dated 1-5-2001, as a result whereof impugned order in petition was set aside and the cases were remanded for fresh decision on merits to Tribunal. The Tribunal on post remand proceedings vide impugned judgment dismissed their appeals. Relevant paras for convenience reads as under:-- "11. The only ground agitated on behalf of the appellants is that the respondent-Bank had followed the Guidelines for Promotions issued by Pakistan Banking Council. According to the respondents those guidelines were only advisory instructions and have no statutory force. But in spite of this fact, these instructions have been followed. The appellants want promotion from the date when their juniors were promoted. According to the respondents the case of the appellants were considered for promotion but they were not found fit for promotion. Appellant Ghulam Mustafa Mirza has prayed that the impugned order dated 1-7-1998 be set aside. This is a letter of S. Anwar Saeed, SVP addressed to appellant, Ghulam Mustafa Mirza and it is as under:-- "This is with reference to your appeal against your non-promotion in 1994 and orders of the Hon'ble High Court passed on June 3, 1998.
Your appeal has been considered and it has been decided that your case for promotion was properly considered and decided in 1994 and there are no valid reasons for modifying the decision then made. Your appeal is, therefore, rejected."
"12 The appellants had cause of action in 1994 when they were not promoted. Presently, they stand retired. Learned Advocate for the respondent-Bank has relied on order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.606 of 2001 (Hazoor-Ul-Islam Abbasi v.
Federation of Pakistan and others). Concluding paragraph of Order dated 8-2-2002 is as under:-- "We are afraid this -contention is riot entertainable first for the reasons that the petitioner after having accepted retirement under Golden Handshake Scheme had received all his dues, meaning thereby, that he was not in the employment of the bank therefore, he had no locus standi to challenge the implementation of the policy and secondly the appeal filed by him before the Tribunal was hopelessly barred by time, due to which he was not entitled for any relief."
"13 As all the appellants want antedated promotion and they had already been retired, it is not possible for this Tribunal to substitute its order in place of administrative decision taken in 1994, Their cases were considered but they were not found fit for promotion. No ground has been made out which may justify interference at this stage. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that notwithstanding the fact that they have been retired but they were entitled for promotion from the post of AVP to the post of VP but the Service Tribunal had non-suited them merely for the reason that they have accepted Golden Handshake Scheme and relied upon the decision of this Court in Civil Petition No.606 of 2001 (Hazoor-Ul-Islam Abbasi v. Federation of Pakistan and others) therefore, the Tribunal had not examined the cases of the petitioners on merits.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for caveator contended that promotion cannot be claimed in the light of decision of this Court. However, cases were examined and they were not promoted to the next grade. He also contended that the petitioners have also received the benefit of Golden Handshake Scheme at the time of their retirement.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the competent authority of. The Bank considered the cases of the petitioners for promotion but declined to grant relief as they were not found fit for promotion. As far as the question of promotion is concerned it does not create a vested right in favour of an employee as has been decided in Zafarullah Baloch v. Government of Balochistan and others (2002 SCM R 1056). Thus the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that they are entitled for promotion has no substance in view of the fact that petitioners are not fit for promotion.
It is undisputed fact that the petitioners had availed Golden Handshake Scheme thus considering their cases from this angle as well they were not entitled for the relief as such, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the earlier judgment of this Court as well as in the impugned judgment in declining them relief.
6. No other point was argued on behalf of petitioners.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons, we see no merits in these petitions which are dismissed. Leave declined.