' M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-in this case the appellant was a confirmed Tehsildar w.e f. 8th April, 1960 was promoted to P C. S (E.B.) by a Notification dated 2nd May, 190 with the stipulation that the promotion was "subject to the determination of their seniority vis-a-vis those junior to them who were promoted earlier". The appellant claims that vide Notification of 3rd October, 1972 he was assigned the presumptive date of promotion to the PCS (E.B.) as 29th September, 1965. The promotion was subject to the condition that, "the assignment of presumptive date of appointment will not entitle the above officers to arrears of pay on this account". Therefore the appellant refers to another Notification of the Punjab Government dated 10th September, 1973 which indicates the "seniority of E.A.C. Working in the Punjab up to 31st December, 1972" and the name of the appellant was shown at Serial No, 102 and his 'date of appointment' was shown as 1st January, 1966. On the strength of this Notification the appellant has been claiming the fixation of his pay in the PCS (E.B.) w e.f. 1st January, 1965 and demanding arrears of pay as a consequence thereof. Aggrieved of the non-payment of the arrears the appellant has moved this appeal before us.
' The respondents have, however, produced another list issued on 13th September, 1973 in which the seniority list and the list carrying dates of presumptive promotion allowed to various incumbents have been separately shown. It has been shown from this list that whereas the appellant's names has been shown in the seniority list at Serial No, 102, his name is not shown in the list allocating the dates of pro forma promotion to the promotees. It is to be observed that the appellant was retired in March 1972 under Martial Law Regulation No,
114. It has been shown to us that the name of all the retired persons have been excluded from the list of pro forma promotion notified on 13th September, 1973. In doing so it is asserted no distinction has been made between the persons retired normally or under M.L.R. No,
114. It is thus pressed that the appellant having not been given any pro forma promotion the question of payment of arrears does not arise. The respondents also rely upon General Clauses Act Punjab, section 20, for the proposition that authority issuing notification can add, amend, vary or rescind such a notification.
' The question for consideration in this case before us is whether the Government after notified a date of pro forma promotion to the appellant could unilaterally withdraw the date of promotion by a latter Notification. We are of the view that in the case of pro forma promotion the mere declaration of the date of such a promotion creates valuable rights in favour of the promotee for the reason for such an order to be acted upon no further formality appears to be necessary. The case of pro forma promotion is distinguishable from a case of actual promotion inasmuch as in the latter case the order would mature into a right from the date the promotee actually assumes charges of the higher post. In or view the power of receding till a decisive step is taken is no doubt available to the Government or the relevant authorities, and the authority that has the power to make an order has also power to undo it, but such power is subject to the limitation that where the order has taken legal effect and as a consequence thereof certain rights have been created in favour of any individual such an order cannot be withdrawn or altered to the detriment of those rights. This view is supported by the case cited as PLD 1969 SC 407 in which section 20 of the Leneral Clauses Act is duly noticed. In respectfully following the rule laid down by the Supreme Court, we hold that the pro forma promotion having once been given to the appellant could not be taken away to the detriment of his rights. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and we direct that the appellant be deemed to have been given pro forma promotion with effect from 1st January 1966 and the consequential benefits should accrue to him.
' There are no orders as to costs. Appeal succeeded.