Syed Nasir Ali Shah, Member.--Intricate and complex facts forming the background of this appeal may be traced and grasped. Compendiously and chronologically put, Mansoor Ahmed Sirohey appellant Was inducted as Assistant Engineer (BS-17) in the respondent-Department with effect from 31.3.1988. Subsequently on 3.2.1991 the appellant was appointed as Deputy Director (BS-18) with effect from 14.11.1990 on purely temporary/ad hoc basis for six months. Thereafter on 15.7.1997 the appellant was posted as Director (Maintenance) Lahore on current-charge basis with immediate effect. Subsequently on 30.12.2004 the appellant was approved for promotion as Director (BS-19). Again on 15.1.2005 the appellant was granted temporary promotion to the post of Director (BS-19). Thereafter on 22.10.2007 on "occurrence" of regular post of Director (Engineering)
BS-19 the appellant was confirmed on regular basis against the post of Director Engineering. On 2.8.2013 the appellant made departmental representation to the Chairman, National Highway Authority, Respondent No, 1 for his antedated promotion to the post of Director with effect from 14.11.1997, the date of occurrence of vacancy. This representation remained un-responded.
2. Against such a ticklish backdrop the appellant brought this appeal by inter alia maintaining that on 15.7.1997, the date on which he was posted as Director on current-charge basis he was eligible for promotion to the post of Director, having put in seven years of service in BS-18. The appellant thus urged that he was required to be promoted as Director in the year 1997. The appellant thus prayed that his promotion in BS-19 may be antedated from the date of holding of the charge of the said post on current-charge basis i.e, 15.11.1997 and in BS-20 with effect from 2004 when clear vacancy of Punjab quota was lying vacant with the Department.
3.The appeal was resisted by the respondents. It was explained that the appellant was appointed as Deputy Director Engineering (BS-18) with effect from 14.11.1990 temporarily on ad hoc basis for six months and subsequently he was inducted into the regular establishment of National Highway Authority (BS-18) with effect from 9.3.1995: It was also maintained that for promotion from BS-18 to BS-19, 12-years of service in BS-17 is mandatory. The respondents thus prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and gone through the available record with their able assistance.
5. What falls for determination is whether on 15.7.1997, the date on which the appellant was appointed as Director on current-charge basis he was eligible for Promotion to the post of Director and whether at the relevant time vacancy of the post of Director (BS-19) was available. Here we may mention that according to the law laid down in Klialid Mehmood v. Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab and others (2013 SCM R 544) a civil servant is to be considered for promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancy provided he is qualified to be considered for the same. As mentioned earlier, the appellant was appointed in BS-18 with effect from 14.11.1990. So at the time of his appointment as Director on current-charge basis on 15.7.1997 he had put in six years and eight months service. As noted above, the appellant was appointed in BS-17 in the same Department with effect from 31.3.1988 and as such on 14.11.1990, the date of his appointment in BS- 18, he had put in two years, seven months and 14 days of service in BS-17 in the same Department.
Thus one half of the said service was to be added to the aforesaid service in BS-18. This being so at the time of appointment of the appellant as Director on current-charge basis on 15.7.1997 he had more than seven years of service in BS-18 at his credit and thus was eligible for promotion to the post of Director (BS-19).
6. Now it has to be seen whether vacancy of Director (BS-19) was available on 15.7.1997. We may mention that appointment of a civil servant on current-charge basis presupposes the availability/ occurrence of vacancy. Not only this, the appellant has produced a chart, the authenticity of which has not been seriously challenged by the respondents. According to this chart 10-posts in Grade-19 were less filled at the relevant time. Additionally, the appellant has produced another chart according to which 11-persons in Grade-19 had retired/resigned/ compulsorily retired etc from 6.1.1999 to 22.6.2006. This amply shows that on 15.7.1997 posts of Director (BS-19) were lying vacant.
This being the position according to the law laid down above the appellant was required to be considered for antedated promotion in BS-19 with effect from 15.7.1997, the date he was posted as Director on current-charge basis.
7. For the foregoing reasons we accept this appeal and thereby direct the respondents to consider the appellant for antedated promotion in BS-19 with effect from 15.7.1997, of course, on senior it cum-fitness basis. The respondents are further directed to consider the appellant for antedated promotion in BS-20 when clear vacancy was lying vacant with the Department, of course, on seniority-cum-fitness basis.
8. No order as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly.