Moazzam Hayat, Member.--With this judgment we shall decide Appeal No, 1799(R)CS/2011 filed by appellant Muhammad Aslam and 1800(R)CS/2011 filed by appellant Syed Razi Ahmed. They are superintendents (BS-16) in National Crisis Management. Their grievance is that their colleagues were promoted to BS-17 as Assistant Directors vide order dated 26.05.2011 whereas they were unlawfully ignored. Their departmental appeals, followed by reminders, were not responded. Hence these appeals.
2. The respondents have maintained that the appointment rules/recruitment rules have not been framed to-date, therefore, the appellants could not be considered for promotion.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. Despite non-framing of recruitment/promotion rules on: Masood ur Rehman was promoted from the post of Assistant Director to Deputy Director. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Abbasi filed Appeal No, 79(R)CS/2010 seeking promotion. His appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 04.07.2010. The bench comprised of Mr. Ismail Hassan Niazi and Mr. Moazzam Hayat, Members. The judgment was recorded by Mr. Moazzam Hayat. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced:-- "6. The claim of the appellant shall be considered for promotion immediately on finalization of the rules. If such rules are not finalized within four months the claim of the appellant shall be considered in the light of the government rules under which Mr. Masood-ur-Rehman had been promoted from Assistant Director to Deputy Director."
5. It transpires from the record that Muhammad Rafiq has since been promoted vide notification dated 26.05.2011. However, the promotion/recruitment rules have still not been framed/enforced.
The appellants are, therefore, justified in claiming that they too are entitled to promotion in the same manner in which Mr. Masood ur Rehman and Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Abbasi were promoted.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards Serial No, 9 of Esta Code 2000/2008 Edition it states as under:-- "Sl. No, 9: Bar against making recruitment without framing Recruitment Rules for Civil Posts.
Instances have come to the notice of the Establishment Division that appointments to certain posts have been made by the Ministries / Divisions without framing recruitment rules for these posts. Not only does this practice cause hardship to the individuals themselves but also creates administrative difficulties as the time of their promotion/recruitment. It has therefore been decided that:--
(i) Appointments (by promotion, transfer of direct recruitment) to the posts for which recruitment rules do not exist or have not been finalized in consultation with Establishment Division / FPSC, may not be made in the appointment rules and the practice to place the requisitions, with Federal Public Service Commission, through the Establishment Division allowed vide this Division d.o. Letter No, 9/2/74-DV, dated 15th February, 1975 may be stopped forthwith.
(ii) Recruitment rules for all posts sanctioned with the concurrence of the competent authority, if not in existence, should be framed/finalized within three months of the issue of this circular.
(iii)In future the proposals regarding recruitment rules referred to this Division after the expiry of three months of the creation of posts, will not be entertained by the Establishment Division."
7. The instructions contained above are binding on the respondents. They should have, therefore, framed rules within three months of its issuance. It is surprising that despite the circular and despite the judgment of the Tribunal mentioned above, the respondents have not been framed/enforced recruitment rules to date. For negligence on their part the appellants cannot be allowed to suffer. The contention of the counsel for the appellants that vacancies in the promotion cadre exist has not been controverted by the respondents. We accordingly direct the respondents to consider the appellants for promotion in the same manner in which Mr. Masood-ur-Rehman and Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Abbasi were promoted. The entire process may be completed preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of judgment is received in the office of respondents.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.