Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Present counsel for the appellant and the departmental representative.
2. Objections have been filed in some of the appeals. In other appeals, objections have not been filed. Request for further time to file objections on behalf of respondents is declined. The objections filed shall be read in all the appeals since their facts are identical and the prayer made in all of them is that the respondents be directed to extend the benefit of their order dated 02.04.2010 to them by granting them proforma promotion to BS-21 with effect from the date their juniors were promoted. They have also prayed for all the consequential benefits.
3. It transpires from the record that the juniors to the appellants had been given proforma, promotion from BS 20 to 21 and thereafter from BS 21 to 22 with retrospective effect vide order dated 02.04.2010. Their departmental appeals for the same relief were not decided. They were, therefore, constrained to tile appeals in the Tribunal. A Bench comprising Mr. Justice (R) Abdul Ghani Sheikh, Chairman and Mr. Moazzam Hayat, Member decided the appeals and directed the respondents to expedite the process of consideration of the appellants for promotion since in their objections they had taken this defence that the matter was under active consideration of the Establishment Division. We are told that the Establishment Division has finally refused the request of the appellants on the grounds that Dr. Sheikh Aleem Mehmood had been granted antedated promotion while he was still in service and that his case could not be cited for grant of promotion to others.
4. Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan guarantees equal treatment of law to all. It was not only Dr. Sheikh Aleem Mehmood who had been granted antedated promotion but Dr. Abdul Hameed Qureshi, Akbar Hayat Gandapur and Mr. Hameed Akhtar Niazi had also been granted antedate promotion, after their retirement, alongwith others. Once the respondents had opted to grant antedated promotion to these officers, the same relief could not be refused to the appellants since they were evenly placed with the said officers. Thus they could not be discriminated.
5. We have seen the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 25.03.2010 passed in Civil Appeals No, 426 - 428, 430 of 2008 and 31-P of 2009. The Bench comprised of My lord the Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, My Lord Mr. Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, My Lord Mr. Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, My Lord Justice Rehmat Hussain Jafferi, Mr. Justice Tariq Pervez and My Lord Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced verbatim:-- "ORDER Learned Deputy Attorney General, after having gone through the inquiry report, submitted by the Establishment Division, fixing responsibility upon M/s. Tariq Saeed Haroon (Establishment Secretary), M. Aslam Sanjrani (Additional Secretary), Mr. Salman Siddique (JS CP), Mrs. Nargis Sethi (JS CP) and Abdul Wadood Khattak (DS CP, since died). stated that sometime be given to him to take instructions from the concerned quarters. We have further made him clear that in view of the above referred enquiry report, two options are available to the Court i,e, either to proceed against above said officers or to direct the Government to initiate action against them; and as a consequence of action, appellants shall be given proforma promotion without any delay. We would also like to observe that appellants, had suffered unnecessarily, on account of conduct of the officers, named hereinabove, and fur the redressal of their grievance, they had to knock the door of the Court and without getting any relief they have been retired. In the circumstances, the Government through Secretary Establishment should have taken personal interest to ensure that the grievance of the appellants is redressed without fail.
However, in view of the request so made by the learned Deputy Attorney General, matter is adjourned to 30th March, 2010."
6. On 01.04.2010 another order was passed by a Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court headed by My Lord Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Deputy Attorney General had stated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the competent authority had decided to grant proforma promotion to the appellants. The respondents have not been able to point out any difference in the claims made by the present appellants before us and the claim of the aforementioned officers made in the apex Court. The rules of justice required that the same treatment should have been given to the present appellants. This claim could not be refused on the grounds taken by the respondents, mentioned above.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has stated at the Bar that the Ministry of Law, Justice and.
Parliamentary Affairs has already issued an advice to the Establishment Division for granting the same treatment to the appellants as had been given. to Dr. Sheikh Aleem Mahmood, Dr. Abdul Hameed Qureshi, Akbar Hayat Gandapur, Mr. Hameed Akhtar Niazi and others. The Establishment Division has to implement the advice of the Ministry of Law and Tustice, especially when the case of the appellants is at par with the said officers.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record a list containing the categories of officers entitled to the relief. While considering the grant of relief to the appellants this list shall be given due importance.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to a judgment of this Tribunal dated 22.09.2011 passed in Appeal No, 893(R)CS/2011. The judgment was recorded by Mr. Moazzam Hayat, Member. Mrs. Neelam S. Ali was the appellant in that appeal. It was filed against the Establishment Division. The relevant prayers made in that appeal were that her promotion to the post of Secretary be protected or on the alternative she be granted proforma promotion. Both the reliefs were given to her. According to Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Bhutta, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal against the said judgment of the Tribunal has since been dismissed by the apex Court. This statement has not been controverted by the respondents. We, therefore, find force in the argument of the appellants that if Mrs. Ali could be granted proforma promotion after retirement, they could also be granted the same relief.
10. It is a well-established law that the benefits of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Federal Service Tribunal have to be extended to even non-litigating parties. Such parties cannot be compelled to indulge into litigation. It is the duty of the Government to grant relief to the claimants when relief is given to other evenly placed Government officers. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi vs. Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others (1996 SCM R 1185). The issue with regard to limitation thus no longer remains relevant in the appeals filed by Government officials, under compulsion, when they are not extended the benefits of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Federal Service Tribunal. In the circumstances, the objection of the respondents with regard to limitation is repelled. The applications filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 are allowed. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned.
11.For the above reasons, we allow the appeals and direct the respondents to consider the appellants for grant of antedated promotion, from the date it was allowed to their juniors, with all the consequential benefits. The process may be completed, preferably within a period of sixty days from the date a copy of the judgment is received in the Establishment Division.
12.Announced in open Court.
13.Parties he informed.