JEHAN ZAIBJ BURKI, MEMBER-IV - The appellant was aggrieved, with the impugned order dated 25.2.2005 whereby he was denied anti-dation of his promotion/confirmation in the rank of 51 of police w.e.f. 30.9.1997 instead of 17.2.2000.
2. Briefly speaking, it has been contended by the appellant that he was promoted to the rank of A.S.I. w.e.f.4.2.1989. He was confirmed and admitted to List "E" w.e.f. 4.2.1989. He was promoted as officiating 51 w.e.f 17.2.2000. According to the appellant-private respondents Nos. 2 to 8 had been admitted to promotion List E later than the appellant. Despite that. They had been Promoted confirmed as 51 w.e.f. 30 9.1997 whereas he had been granted the said promotion as officiating 51 w.e.f 17 2.2000.
3. The respondents have resisted the appeal and have stated that the private respondents impleaded by the appellant had been appointed as T/ASI during 1988 to 1990. They had been promoted to the rank of SI w.e.f. 30.9.1997 on the analogy by 51 Zahoor Shaheen of Lahore District who had succeeded in getting such promotion benefits in pursuance of judgment of the PST delivered in the appeal filed by him. No SI of the appellant's seniority had been given ante-dated promotion benefits such as claimed by the appellant. As such, he had no case to be treated at. Par with the private respondents referred to by him. During the course of proceedings of the instant appeal, the Tribunal. Vide its order dated 10.5.2007 called far additional comments from respondent No. 1 i.e. D.I.G., Sheikhupura Range, Lahore on the plea of discrimination taken up by the appellant. The appellant had stated that one SI Riaz, Ahmad No. SA/2003 of District Nankana had been granted promotion with reference to the judgment dated 30.10.2001 of the P.S.T. In respect of SI Zahoor Shaheen No. 997/L of Lahore District. It was argued by the appellant that his case was identical to the case of the said SI Riaz Ahmad. On this, respondent No. 1 had been directed to look into the matter personally and submit additional comments on the above point. The requisite comments had since been received. It has been stated by the respondents that in pursuance of guidance/advice provided by the Central Police Officer vide their memo, dated 1.9.2005, the representation of all officials senior to SI Zahoor Shaheen No. 997/L were being considered and such officials were being granted ante-dated promotion/confirmation in the rank of SI w.e.f.
30.9.1997. Since, the case of the SI Riaz Ahmad No. SA/2003 fell within the prescribed criteria, he had been granted ante-dated promotion/confirmation w.e.f. 30.9.1997 instead of 7.2.2002 vide his office order dated 7.1.2006. The departmental representation of the appellant SI Ahmad Yar No. 72/SA had been considered and filed prior to the above-mentioned guidance provided by the C.P.O.
4. The parties have been heard and the relevant record has been perused.
5. In tile additional comments filed by respondent No. 1, it has been conceded that representation of the appellant for ante-dation of his promotion/confirmation w.e.f. 30.9.1997 had been decided vide his order dated 25.2.2005, prior to the guidance furnished by the C.P.O. Vide its memo dated 1.9,2005. This was the reason that whereas SI Riaz Ahmad No. 2003/SA who fell within the prescribed criteria had been granted ante-dated promotion/confirmation w.e.f. 30.9.1997 instead of 7.2.2002 vide his order dated 7.1.2006 the same treatment could not be meted out to the appellant as his departmental representation had been disposed of vide the respondents order dated 25.2.2005, much before the guidance provided by the C.P.O. Vide its memo, dated 1.9.2005.
6. In view of the foregoing position, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 25:2.2005 is set aside from the same date. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 1 with the direction to reconsider the departmental representation of the appellant afresh in the light of the additional comments offered by him. The prayer of the appellant for ante-dation of his promotion as officiating SI and confirmation in the same rank w.e.f 30.9.1997 instead of 17.2.2000 should be considered afresh. In case the contention of the appellant that his case was identical to that of SI Riaz Ahmad No. SA/2003 is found correct, he should be granted the same treatment i.e. Ante- dation of. His promotion as officiating SI/confirmation w.e.f. 30.9.1997 instead of 17.2.2000. The action to implement this order should be finalized within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is received by the respondents.
7. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly.