Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Badr-ul-Islam, Assistant Protocol Officer in the Prime Minister's Secretariat, has filed this appeal since he was not considered for promotion to BS-17 vide order dated 29.04.2011. He was deferred for promotion with an observation that he shall be considered for promotion on earning one year Confidential Report.
2. The appellant had been given remarks that he was nor fit for promotion. These remarks were expunged by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No, 1559(R)CS/2010 vide judgment date 27.01.2011. The judgment was recorded by Mr. Mozazzam Hayat, Member. He was still not considered for promotion. He accordingly filed Appeal No, 163(R)CS/2011 which was decided on 14.03.2011 by a Bench comprising M/s. Moazzam Hayat and Farrakh Qayyum, Members, It was observed by the Tribunal in Order that since the appellant had not been superseded and was deferred, therefore, he shall be considered for promotion in the next meeting of the DPC from the date his juniors were promoted. In pursuance of this direction of FST the appellant was again deferred vide impugned order dated 29.04.2011 with the above mentioned observation that he shall be considered for promotion when he shall earn Confidential Report for full year. According to the learned counsel for the appellant this observation was not legal and the respondents were bound to consider the appellant for promotion as directed by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.03.2011.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is slated that the appellant was considered in the light of direction of the FST dated 14.03.2011 and it was held that his case shall be processed further when he shall earn Confidential Report for full one year.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties 'and have perused the record.
5. The appellant was earlier promoted as Assistant Protocol Officer (BS-17) on 16.04.2007. This period of probation was extended for one year due to his inefficiency. Since he did not improve, he was surrendered to the Administration where he was reposted as Superintendent Accounts (BS-16) vide order dated 03.03.2010. He did not raise any objection against his reversion as Superintendent.
He worked in that capacity till 03.03.2010. He then proceeded on 731-days leave on half pay from 22.11.2010 to 21.11.2012. It means that he is still on leave on half pay. In our view the Appellant was not eligible for promotion as he was on leave on half pay and had not earned one year Confidential Report as required by the DPC. The promotion policy enforced by the Government in October, 2007 has been revised. In this regard a reference is made to Esta Code Serial No, 162-A, Page 247, Edition 2007. Volume-I. The DPC have been empowered to prescribe conditions for deferment. Under these powers the Board can defer the promotion of an officer to further watch his performance. It was under this policy that a direction had been issued vide order dated 29.04.2011 that the promotion of the appellant shall be considered when he shall earn confidential report for complete year. There was thus no illegality committed by the DPC in making observation that the appellant shall not be considered for promotion and shall be deferred till he earned one Report for a full year. Presently the appellant is on leave on half pay. His leave shall expire on 21.11.2012, unless he joins earlier. He shall be considered for promotion, from the date his juniors were promoted, after he earns full one year's Confidential Report/Per. With this direction the appeal is disposed of.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Parties shall be informed.