' SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.--- By way of filing instant petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; 1973, the petitioner has sought a direction to respondents Nos.1 and 2 for issuance of Call Letter for promotion as Vice President.
2. Succinct facts, as stated in the instant petition, are that the National Bank of Pakistan (the Bank) notified Promotion Policy-2011 and 2012, vide President's Office Circular No,05/2012, dated 21.03.2012, for the regular employees of the Bank, when the petitioner was serving as Assistant Vice President.
Despite fulfillment of eligibility criteria he was not called for interview for promotion against the post of Vice President; hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the aforesaid policy was notified the petitioner was in active service of the Bank, thus, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider him for promotion; that the respondents never confronted the petitioner with any material impeding his way for promotion and that the petitioner served the President of the Bank (respondent No,1) with Legal Notice but the same was not responded with mala fide intention just to deprive the petitioner from promotion. In support of his oral submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as Secretary School of Education and others v. Rana Arshad Khan and others (2012 SCMR 126), Farasat Hussain and others v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation through Chairman and others (2005 PLC (C.S.) 890), The Province of the Punjab, through the Secretary, Services and General Administration, Lahore v. Syed Muhammad Ashraf (1973 SCMR 304), Raja Muhammad Ashraf v. Punjab Public Service Commission through Secretary and another (2009 PLC (C.S.) 471) and Mrs. Naseem M. Oadri v. Federation of Pakistan and another (2009 PLC (C.S.) 229).
4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that as the petitioner has already retired from service of the Bank, thus, he has no vested right to claim promotion after acceptance of pensionary benefits; that it has been clarified in the aforesaid Policy that nobody would stand promoted ipso facto rather it would depend upon assessment of overall suitability of the employee concerned against the post in question and that according to the law laid down by apex Court of the country in the cases reported as Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Tufail (2012 PLC (C.S.) 1104), Abdul Hameed v. Ministry of Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary and others (PLD 2008 SC 395), Muhammad Aslam Sultan v.
Federation of Pakistan through G.M Pakistan Railways, HQRs, Lahore and another (2006 SCMR 1465), Abid Hussain Sherazi v. Secretary M/O Industries and Production,. Government of Pakistan, Islamabad (2005 SCMR 1742), Government of Pakistan through Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others v. Hameed Akhtar Niazi, Academy of Administrative, Walton Training, Lahore and others (PLD 2003 SC 110), Finance Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others v.
Shahid Hussain and others (1992 SCMR 77), Muhammad Yousaf v. The Chairman, Railway Board/Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad and others (1991 SCMR 1559), Kokab Iqbal v.
Manager National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore and 3 others (2014 PLC (C.S.) 876), Muhammad Alamgir v. National Bank of Pakistan through Regional Head and others (2014 PLC (C.S.) 963), Liaqat Ali V.
Government of N.W.F.P. Through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Peshawar and 10 others (2014 PLC (C.S.) 982), Nazeer Ahmed Chakrani and 2 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan and 2 others (2009 PLC (C.S.) 776), Nagina Bakery v. Sui Southern Gas Limited and 3 others (2001 PLC (C.S.) 760), Rehman v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 2 others (1983 PLC 210), Mirza Majeed Baig and 3 others v. Messrs Futehally Chemicals Ltd., Karachi and 2 others (1973 *PLC 297) and Secretary, B.&R., .Government of West Pakistan and 4 others v. Fazal Ali Khan (PLD 1971 Karachi 625) a government servant cannot claim promotion after his retirement.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while exercising his right of rebuttal, submits that when right of the petitioner for promotion has accrued during his stay in service, same could not be taken away by the respondents on the ground that after retirement he was not entitled for promotion.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents annexed with this petition as well as the case law cited at the bar, I have noted that the petitioner has prayed for a direction to respondents Nos.1 and 2 to issue ,him Call Letter for interview for promotion against the post of Vice President. In my humble opinion, after retirement, said request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to for the reason that after retirement no government servant can ask for issuance of Call Letter for interview for promotion.
7. Insofar as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that from the date of promulgation of aforesaid Policy the petitioner was entitled to promotion as Vice President, thus, his retirement from service does not debar him to claim that, is concerned, suffice it to observe that had the petitioner been interviewed for promotion then definitely this principle was applicable but when he did not appear for interview or was not called by the competent authority to adjudge his eligibility for promotion, how he can claim that a vested right has accrued in his favour with just announcement of the aforesaid Policy.
8. A bird's eye view of the aforesaid Policy shows that in the said Policy it has nowhere been mentioned that all persons eligible on that day would stand promoted rather firstly the same was subject to suitability of the persons and secondly availability of vacant posts. At this stage, it is not clear whether any post of Vice President was vacant at the given point of time and the petitioner was the only suitable person for promotion against the post of Vice President.
9. So far as the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to observe that the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of instant case inasmuch as in the case of Secretary School of Education and others (Supra) the retired government servant was held entitled for promotion despite his retirement for the reason that working papers for his promotion were prepared much prior to his superannuation whereas the petitioner in the instant case has himself admitted that neither he was called for interview for promotion as Vice President nor any concrete step was ever taken in that regard. In the case of Farasat Hussain and others (Supra) the controversy in pith and substance was qua reinstatement of a government servant after receipt of his pensionary benefits which is not the position in the case in hand. Coming to the case of The Province of the Punjab, through the Secretary, Services and General Administration, Lahore (Supra), I have noted that the apex Court of the country in the said case has held that when a person is entitled to hold a higher post but he could not do so due to act of the competent authority, he is entitled for pay against the higher post whereas in the case in hand the petitioner has prayed only for issuance of Call Letter for interview for promotion against the post of Vice President. So far as the case of Raja Muhammad Ashraf (Supra) is 'concerned, suffice it to observe that in the said judgment it has inter alia been held that nobody should be prejudiced due to act of the public functionaries. In the case of Mrs. Naseem M. Qadri (Supra) a learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court has held that when a right has accrued in favour of a government servant, he is entitled thereto even after his retirement but as no decisive step was taken in favour of the petitioner this case is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
For what has been discussed above, instant petition is dismissed.