' MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).--- As per facts relevant to this appeal, the appellant started his service career as police constable. He was, posted in Police Training School and was consequently granted one step promotion as head constable w,e,f, 16-1-1996. Appellant completed his term in the Training School as he continued to serve there upto 26-6-1999 when he was transferred back to district police. Appellant was confirmed as head constable through orders dated 29-10-2004 from the date he was so promoted i,e, w,e,f, 16-1-1999. However, a letter dated 18-11-2004 (presently impugned) was written by respondent No,2 to respondent No,3 informing him that the head constables who had been given one step promotion, could not be allowed to retain their promotion rank permanently. Appellant filed departmental appeal against this decision and as the same was not decided within the statutory period, he has come to this Tribunal with present service appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that law was now settled that one step promotion awarded to police officials on account of their posting in training schools was regular and proper promotion in the substantive rank and the same could not be withdrawn when a police official had completed prescribed tenure of three years or more in the training school. Learned counsel has, in that connection, placed reliance on many judgments of this Tribunal, inter alia, the judgment dated 10-7-2003 in Appeal No,314 of 2003 (Muhammad Riaz, Sub-Inspector No,GL/120 v. D.I.-G. Gujranwala and another). It is pointed out that the same question of law was decided through that judgment of this Tribunal and it was held by the Tribunal that in terms of Rule 13.18 of Police Rules, confirmation had to take place from the date of promotion and no exception could be made in cases of one step promotion. Learned counsel has also similarly placed reliance on the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as 1999 SCM R 1594. It is maintained that same question of law was decided through this judgment of the apex Court and the judgment of the Tribunal in the same connection was upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is further pointed out that in the presence of this settled law it was not open to the department to adopt contrary policy and to withdraw confirmation of the appellant, which may finally lead to his reversion and the appellant may stand deprived of the service benefits of one step promotion which were allowed to the appellant since posting in Training Schools was considered unattractive.
3. Respondents have opposed the appeal mainly on the ground that one step promotion allowed to the appellant on his posting in the Police Training School, was temporary walk-over and that he had no right to receive confirmation or to retain the rank of head constable (one step promotion) on permanent basis. Reference is also made to the letter dated 19-4-1994 of I.-G. Police vide which it was decided that in spite of completion of three years' period in Training Schools, police officials were not entitled to hold promotion rank permanently. It is finally stated that the impugned orders were passed in accordance with law and did not warrant any interference.
4. I have considered averments from both sides and also scanned the relevant record including the policy letter issued by I.-G.P., appellant was allowed one step promotion as head constable on his posting in the Pole Training School, Sargodha through orders dated 16-1-1996. There is nothing in these orders to exhibit that this promotion was temporary or ad hoc or stop gap or officiating.
This was undoubtedly promotion on substantive basis. I also agree with learned counsel for the appellant that law is now well-settled through various judgments of this Tribunal and also the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as Qayyum Nawaz Khan v. I.-G.P.
1999 SCM R 1594 that one step promotion on posting in Training Schools was substantive promotion and had to be followed by confirmation subject to service record being satisfactory. Appeal is not opposed by the respondents on the ground that the service record of the appellant was not satisfactory. The circular letter dated 19-4-1994 issued by I.-G.P. Being in conflict with the well- settled law, carried little legal value. Appeal is, therefore, accepted and the impugned orders, to the extent of withdrawal of confirmation of the appellant as head constable are set aside.