Appellant Khalid Mahmood Farooqi joined Police Department as ASI in Lahore Police vide S.P.
Administration No, 14638/B-I dated 31.03.1985. In single appointment order the name of 25 selectees were contained as T/ASIs and the date of appointment was mentioned against each of the selectee. Appellant's name was mentioned at Serial No, 4 with his date of appointment as 31.03.1985 whereas the date of appointment of the private respondents were also mentioned the same.
In due course of time appellant along with his batch dates was promoted as S.I and meanwhile in the year 2004 he went to abroad on UNO peace keeping Mission in Sudan and Rawandan. After retur he came to know that his junior Inspector Nusrat Nagra/Respondent o. 3 had not only been promoted as Inspector but also given ant dated promotion/ confirmation in the rank of S.I w.e.f 21.11.1990 instead of 01.07.1994 by the CCPO Lahore. On the basis of his revised anti da d confirmation his name was admitted in list-F w.e.f 07.11.199. Accordingly he (Respondent No, 3) was also promoted as Officiating Inspector w.e.f 16.11.1995. The appellant filed departmental re presentation before Appellate Authority for admission his name in List F w.e.f 07.11.1995 and officiating promotion in the rank of Inspector w.e.f 16.11.1995 the date when his junior Inspector Nusrat Ali Nagra was so promoted by the order of the I.G.P. The said representation has not been decided so far and after exhausting stipulated period he filed instant appeal before this Tribunal under Section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Respondents No, 3 to 6 who were in-fact juniors to him from the date of induction into department got promoted as Inspector earlier to him which act on the part of department was entirely discriminatory. The respondent extended the benefits of Allauddin case to Respondent No, 3 to 6 but at the same time the benefits towards the appellant were denied without any reason. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in reported cases 1984 SCM R 286, 1996 SCM R 1185 & 2009 SMCR 01 that benefit of any judgment wherein interpretation of law and rules has been made by the superior judiciary the benefit of such interpretation should also be extended to all the civil servants. He further contended that seniority is a Vested right in Punjab which cannot be altered/changed unless the person is superseded. He was never superseded by the department but was made junior to the person who joined service one day after the appellant. It i clear violation of Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974 and Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments & Conditions of Service), Rules, 1974. The act of the department is against the law of natural justice hence not sustainable.
On the contrary learned Dy. District Attorney as well as Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. They maintained that batch mates of the appellant mentioned at Serial Nos, 3 to 6 filed their appeals for antedated admission of their names to promotion list "F" and further promotion as Inspectors. Their appeals were accepted and they were granted antedated admission to promotion list "F" and further promotion to Inspectors accordingly. However, the appellant did not file any appeal/representation before the Inspector General of Police Punjab for antedated admission of his name to promotion list "F' and promotion to the rank of Inspector. The case of appellant for admission of his name to promotion list "F" and further promotion as Inspector was considered in the general "F" list case of year 2000, on the basis of his promotion/ confirmation to the rank of SI w.e.f 01.07.1993. Therefore, his name was admitted to promotion list "F" w.e.f 26.08.2000 and promoted as Offg: Inspector w.e.f 22.01.2001.
In the year 2010, he has been confirmed to the rank of Inspector from the date of his promotion and granted confirmation No, C/959. Therefore, no discrimination was meted out with the appellant.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned Dy. District Attorney, departmental representative and have gone through the available record minutely. In the Police Department the authorities are bound to adopt the criteria as mentioned in Rule 13.1 for the purpose of promotions from one rank to another. The relevant portion of Rule 13.1 (1) is reproduced hereunder:-- PROMOTION FROM ONE RANK TO ANOTHER "Promotion from one rank to another and from one grade to another in the same rank shall be made by selection tempered by seniority."
This rule clearly resolves the issue that promotion could be made only on the basis of selection tempered by seniority thus, the appellant should be given the same benefit of promotion as has been given to his juniors. Respondent No, 1 has also issued a circular letter/notification dated 10.03.2004 wherein in para-iii Heads of the Police Offices in Punjab were given directions with regard to the compliance of Rule 13.1 of Police Rule in case of admission to list "E" and promotion as SI which is reproduced hereunder:-- 'Date of admission to list "E" and promotion as Sub-Inspector can be changes as a result of ante- dating confirmation but very carefully keeping in view the relevant rules especially the Police Rule 13.1 so that chances of litigation are minimized. Training course attached to each rank for further advancement in service will also be a material factor governing confirmation."
The Police Department has itself implemented number of judgments with regard to the strict applicability of Rule 13.1 in letter and spirit thus, appellant should also be given the same benefits.
As per intention of Police Rule when any employee of police department is placed in any list it means that he will be considered for promotion in the next rank under Rules 12.8 & 13.18 of Police Rules, 1934 subject to availability of vacancy/post as well as having good service record. The most important factor is that seniority in service is a vested right of every individual which cannot be disturbed by any means. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan set this law while deciding number of appeals regarding seniority. During the proceedings of instant service appeal his case was kept sine-die adjourned as the matter of identical nature was pending adjudication in Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Now the appeal is restored for regular hearing. According to parawise comments submitted by the respondent/department it was admitted in Para No, 5, 6, & 7 which are reproduced as that:--
5. "In the light of above said policy letter, all upper subordinates were granted confirmation in their ranks from the date of appointment/promotion. The Capital City Police Officer, Lahore granted the appellant antedated promotion/ confirmation to the rank of ASI w.e.f 31.03.1985 instead of 29.04.1989 and likewise his date of promotion/confirmation to the rank of SI was also antedated w.e.f 1.11.1990 instead of w.e.f 01.07.1993.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the batch mates of the appellant mentioned at Serial Nos, 03 to 06 filed their appeals for antedated admission of their names to promotion list "F" and further promotion as inspectors. Their appeals were accepted and they were granted antedated admission to promotion list "F" w.e.f 06,11.1995, and further promotion to Inspectors w.e.f 17.11.1995, accordingly.
7. "It is being brought to the kind notice of the Learned Service Tribunal that the appellant did not file any appeal to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab for antedated admission of his name to promotion list "F" and further promotion/confirmation as Inspector according to revised date of his promotion/confirmation as SI i.e 01.11.1990. when his appeal will be received in this office the same will be decided as per rules and regulations".
As per the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant already explained the appellant was not present in the country and he could not file departmental representation well in time and on his return from UNO peace keeping mission when he came to know the position he filed the representation upon which reportedly no decision had been taken by the authority. It is a very simple case I.G.P himself granted antedated confirmation to his batch mates Inspector Nusrat Ali Nara L/583 and Inspector Abid Ali L/23 in the rank of S.I on their representations w.e.f 01.11.1990 instead of 01.07.1994. On the basis of revised confirmation in the rank of S.I their appeals were further accepted and their name were admitted to promotion list-F w.e.f 07.11.1995 and accordingly they were also promoted as Officiating Inspectors on 16.11.1995 the date when confirmed S.I of their dates were so promoted. The case of appellant have the same contents features and also identical with the private respondents. It is a sort of discrimination that he has yet been deprived from his right of promotion. The Respondent No, 1 in his parawise comments and reply did not lay down any valid objection against the proforma promotion of appellant as Inspector rather he himself admitted the factual position of granting antedated promotion to private Respondents No, 3 to 6 juniors to appellant.
5. In view of the above discussion appeal of the appellant is accepted keeping in view the actual position Respondent No, 1/IGP is directed to give him the same, benefit as was given to his juniors Nusrat Ali Nagra L/583 and Abid Ali L/23 and admit his name to list-F w,e,f, 7.11.1995 and also give effect by way of proforma promotion as officiating Inspector w,e,f, 16.11.1995 the date when his juniors were so promoted. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.