1. The petitioner, who is a retired Federal Government servant, has preferred this constitutional petition with the following prayers.
2. "(i) That the action of the respondents by way of letter dated 30-5-2007 on the deferment of "pro forma promotion" of the petitioner to BS-19 is illegal and of no legal consequence.
(ii) Direct the respondents to grant "pro forma promotion" of BS-19 and onwards to the petitioner in commensurate with his length of service and his seniority and to pay him arrears of salary and retirement benefits and to continue to pay such benefits to the petitioner accordingly.
(iii) Cost of the petition.
(iv) Any other relief or reliefs this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."
3. In brief, case of the petitioner is that after qualifying the Central Superior Services Examination of 1972, he had joined Government service in the year 1973 and was assigned to Military Lands and Cantonments Group. Despite the fact that his performance, as an officer, was so good that in the year 1983 his name was recommended for "Sitara-i-Imtiaz", on a very trivial mistake attributed to him, on 16-2-2001, he was illegally and unjustly dismissed from service. Such decision was challenged by him before the Federal Service Tribunal, whereupon his appeal was allowed and he was reinstated in service with all back-benefits vide order, dated 4-2-2006. Further, case of the petitioner as that due to the pendency of enquiry proceedings against him, his name for promotion to Grade-19 was deferred by the Promotion Board in its meeting held in October, 2000, while other officers of his batch even junior to him and having lesser marks, were promoted. In such circumstances, virtually, are petitioner's case for Promotion was never taken up before the Promotion Board and his representation even for pro forma promotion to BPS-19 was dismissed by the competent authority in a summary manner. The petitioner has also made reference to a judgment of this Court in C.P. No,D-795 of 2002 to show that a retired Government servant could be granted pro forma promotions if it was found that he was deprived of such benefit for no fault on his part. Further, insistence of the petitioner is that the term "back-benefits" also included his promotion on his turn, which due to his retirement could not be accorded to him.
4. On notice of this petition, on behalf of respondents parawise comments have been filed, wherein such assertions of the petitioner have not been denied rather it has been conceded that the promotion of the petitioner was deferred by the Promotion Board in its meeting held on 11-10-2000 for the sole reason that enquiry was being conducted against him.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the above stated facts, has taken us to the operative part of the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 4-2-2006 to show that the reinstatement of the petitioner is with effect from the date of his dismissal from service and with all back-benefits.
6. Learned counsel has further referred relevant observations of a Division Bench of this Court in C.P.
7. No,D-795 of 2002, which read thus:--- "The precise grievance of the petitioner before us is that although in terms of order of the Service Tribunal the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was hold to be illegal and ineffective and the petitioner stood reinstated from the date of the order of his dismissal as if the order of his dismissal had never been passed at all and the petitioner became entitled to all the consequential benefits that would have accrued to him had he not been dismissed from service, however, the respondent have not allowed to the petitioner the pro forma promotions that he was entitled to and deprived the petitioner of the consequential benefits relative thereto. He further submitted that soon after the illegal order of his dismissal that was passed on 5-6-1970, three officers junior to him were promoted as Inspector-General of Police and that he also would have been promoted to the said position in the year 1970, had he not been wrongly dismissed as above."
8. ' Learned counsel urged that the case of the petitioner is identical thus, he is entitled for pro forma promotions and consequent benefits.
9. ' Mr. Ashraf Khan Mughal, learned D.A.-G. On behalf of respondents, after going through the cited judgment of Division Bench, did not dispute that the case of the present petitioner is fully covered with the ratio of said judgment and entitles him for an equitable treatment.
10. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record, which reveals that the petitioner has inter alia, suffered in the matter of his promotion for no fault on his part and, therefore, after his reinstatement in service, in terms of the order of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 4-2-2006 awarding him "all back-benefits", he was also entitled to be considered for promotion. It seems that after his reinstatement till the date of his retirement his case never came up before the Promotion Board for consideration and in such circumstances without availing the benefit of promotion, he retired from the service. In our view, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No,D-795 of 2002 is applicable with "all four" and thus entitles the petitioner for grant of requisite reliefs.
11. ' We accordingly allow this petition in the terms that the decision of respondents contained in the letter, dated 30-5-2007 is declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
12. Further the petitioner is allowed pro forma promotions as per his entitlement with all consequential benefits.