' TARIQ IQBAL LONE (CHAIRMAN).--- Through this appeal the appellant has claimed that he has served the department of AJ&K Inland Revenue for about 39 years. He was retired from service on 12.04.2013 and before retirement he moved an application to the competent authority i,e,, The Secretary AJ&K Council for promotion in BS-17 as Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue. The respondents have given no response to the said application, therefore, another application was moved on 22.03.2013 to respondents Nos.1-3 through Head of the Department for anti-dated promotion in BPS-17 and BPS-18 because he fulfilled the condition for promotion. The said application has also not been responded so far. While mentioning his excellent career and eligibility, the appellant has prayed for direction to the respondents to promote the appellant.
2. The appeal was admitted for regular hearing through order dated: 24.12.2013.
3. Objections and parawise comments on behalf of respondents were filed on 23.04.2014. It is stated therein that the. Service Tribunal can only confirm, set-aside, vary, or modify the order appealed against and it cannot issue any direction. Moreover, the appeal before the Service Tribunal can only be filed against an order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority whereas in this case the appellant has not challenged any order, whether original or appellate.
Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. It is further stated that the appellant is asking for ante dated promotion which he never claimed during his service meaning thereby he is asking for higher pay for the period he never served as such. The promotion is neither a vested right not it can be claimed with a retrospective effect. Thus, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
4. Arguments were heard. Both the Counsel for the parties reiterated the same contentions as already have been mentioned in their respective pleadings. Hence, mere repetition of the contentions of the parties is needless.
5. We have carefully examined the record and considered the pleadings of the parties. The appellant through this appeal has sought a direction to the respondents for promoting him from the dates mentioned in the approaching this Tribunal to get any remedy is an order, whether original or appellant, made by departmental authority. In the present case the appellant has not placed on record any order made by the departmental authority from which the grievance of the appellant can be ascertained. The section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 postulates that: "4. (1) Any civil servant aggrieved by any order whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service may; within thirty days of the communication of such order to him, or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, whichever is later, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal."
The above mentioned provision clearly demonstrates that there must be some order of the departmental authority to be challenged. The appellant has not challenged any order rather he has sought a direction to the respondents which is not the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. According to section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the Tribunal may, on appeal, confirm,. Set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against. Thus issuance of direction is not our job. If, at all the there is any sort of departure from law or the appellant wants the respondents to do what the law bounds them to do, he may approach to the competent forum having such jurisdiction of issuing direction.
6. It is also the settled principle of law that the matter of the promotion is not a vested right and no one can claim promotion as a right. In this regard reliance can be placed on the following legal precedents: "A person cannot claim a vested right for promotion to a particular post with the claim that the rules be framed in such a manner so that he may be promoted. Held further in the rules the government fixed such qualification which is necessary for relevant field---No fundamental rights of appellant have been infringed." 2010 SCR 156.
"Promotion in the, next higher rank or grade is not vested right of any individual". The promotion of any individual cannot be made basis for striking down the rules framed by the Government or authority in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under section 23 of the Civil Servants Act. 2005 SCR 259.
"No one can claim a vested right in Promotion." 1990 SCMR 1321 Thus the appellant cannot claim promotion as a right. He has failed to point out any valid legal, ground for acceptance of this Appeal.
7. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellant prayed in his appeal that: "It is therefore most humbly prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed for anti dated promotion from dates mentioned in the appeal and the respondent may kindly be directed to promote the appellant from the date given in application. Any other relief to which the appellant may be deemed entitled may also be granted."
Thus, the above-mentioned 'prayer clause' shows that the appellant didn't mention any impugned order upon which his claim lies. It is crystal clear that a departmental appeal, can only be filed in the Service Tribunal against a departmental order, whereas the appellant didn't mention and challenge any departmental order, so, the claim of the appellant is also ambiguous and vague.
Hence, in the light of the appellant's prayer, no effective remedy can be granted in appellant's favour. The appeal of the appellant is not maintainable.
8. Moreso, we are not inclined to allow the relief as prayed for in view of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Government of Pakistan through Establishment Division Islamabad and 7 others v. Hameed Akhtar Niazi 2003 PLC (C.S.) 212 that Promotion from back date to the retired civil servant cannot be granted.
9. The principles laid down in the case-laws which were presented by the learned counsel for the appellant, are not relevant with the matter in hand.
10. The result of the above discussion is that the instant appeal is not maintainable, hence finding no force, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.