' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---This Petition for leave to Appeal is directed against judgment dated 22.04.2015 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad (Karachi Bench), whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the instant Petition are that in the year 1967, the Petitioner was appointed as Meteorological Assistant in BS-12. He was promoted as Professional Assistant in BS-13 and posted at Meteorological office in Karachi. In the year 1977, the Petitioner was selected through Federal Public Service Commission as Assistant Meteorologist in BS-16 and posted at Met. Office Karachi Airport. Thereafter, the services of the Petitioner were placed at the disposal of the Pakistan Air Force in 1978 and then to Navy on secondment basis, where he rose to the rank of Squadron Leader. In the meantime, the petitioner was selected by the Federal Public Service Commission for the post of Meteorologist BS-17 and when repatriated to his parent department, he joined as Meteorologist at Met Workshop, Karachi in 1992. He was promoted as Deputy Director BS-18 with effect from 01.07.1995 and posted at MWS, Karachi. In the year 2004, promotion case of the Petitioner for the post of Director BS-19 was prepared and sent to Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi.
He was superseded due to his failure to attain the minimum eligibility threshold of marks as stipulated in the promotion policy for BS-19. He was informed accordingly vide Met Department letter dated 04.10.2004. Thereafter, petitioner approached the Federal Service Tribunal by filing Appeal, which was dismissed, hence this Petition.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Tribunal has failed to take note of the fact that under proviso to F.R.17, the Petitioner was entitled to promotion to BS-19 from the date he was superseded. The learned Counsel further contended that the quantification of P.E.Rs of the Petitioner was not correct and if correctly calculated, the Petitioner had secured more than 70% marks instead of 59.60%. Even on rounding up 59.60% marks secured by the Petitioner, the Petitioner had achieved the minimum threshold for promotion to BS-19. In this respect, this Court on 29.07.2015 has passed the following orders which are reproduced hereunder: "Mr. Salman Talibuddin learned Additional Attorney General was present in Court premises and at our request, he appeared and waived notice. Initially we did issue notice of these proceedings to the Attorney General day before yesterday, which notice was served but no one has put appearance. However, in order to meet the ends of justice, we thought it necessary to enquire from Mr. Salman Talibuddin as to whether he has received any intimation from the Attorney General office Islamabad. He states that no such intimation has been received to him so far.
2. Since issue raised in these proceedings is short as the petitioner has challenged the order of the Selection Board which did not recommend him and instead Abdul Qayyum Khan was promoted, who too has retired by now, therefore, we have asked the learned Additional Attorney 'General to seek instructions from the relevant Authority. The petitioner claims that he has earned 59.60% marks and the threshold for qualifying promotion is 60% marks. The Selection Board could have rounded the marks in terms of FR-17, which would have made him entitled to promotion. We believe that such rounding up is not unusual and is provided under Rule 17 of the Fundamental Rules, therefore, this issue could be resolved without traveling further. As the petitioner has already retired, no one will be affected from his notional promotion. Mr. Salmon Talibuddin states that he would be seeking instructions from the relevant Ministry. We, accordingly, adjourn this matter to 31.07.2015. "
4. Again on 31.07.2015, this Court has passed the following order: "The learned Additional Attorney General for Pakistan states that he has spoken to the Secretary, Aviation Division and it appears that they are inclined to undertake this exercise as provided under FR-17. However, he requests for time to enable the Secretary, Aviation Division to complete this exercise. Adjourned to a date in the next session. It is expected that in the intervening period, the needful shall be done. "
5. On 21:08.2015, a request was made by Deputy Attorney General to seek instructions and the matter was adjourned. On 31.08.2015 again time was granted to the Respondents. On 14.09.2015 following order was passed: "Mr. M. Aslam Butt, learned DAG says that on 31st August, 2014 the Order of this Court was conveyed to the Director General of the Aviation Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad but so far no instructions have been received.
2. In these circumstances, let the said Director General either appear in person or send a responsible officer to this Court on the next date of hearing to apprise us as to the stand of the Division on the Order dated 31.08.2015. Adjourned to the next session. "
6. The matter came up for hearing today when neither D.G. Aviation Division, Government of Pakistan nor any responsible officer of the department put in appearance. No explanation has been offered by the DAG. The Petitioner has specifically pleaded that quantification of his P.E.Rs was incorrect, but inspite of repeated directions from this Court, the Respondents neither appeared nor filed their reply to negate the assertions of the Petitioner. Even if the 59.60 % marks obtained by the Petitioner, as alleged by the Respondents, are rounded up, the Petitioner has become eligible on meeting the minimum threshold for promotion to BS-19 besides proviso to Rule 17 of Fundamental Rules, entitles the Petitioner for pro forma promotion, which order, in no way, would affect the serving officers, as he has already attained the age of superannuation.
7. We, for the aforesaid reasons, in the given circumstances, when the concerned Department has failed to respond to and after perusal of record find that the Petitioner entitled to pro forma promotion, convert this petition into appeal, allow the same and set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal which have failed to give effect to proviso to F.R. 17 which authorizes the competent authority to give pro forma promotion to the Petitioner after retirement. The Secretary, Establishment Division and Aviation Division, as the case may be, shall issue the required notification of pro forma promotion of the Petitioner within three weeks from the date of communication of this judgment and report compliance.