' ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J.--- This judgment will decide ICA No,444/2012 and ICA No,445/2012 as identical questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals. ICA No,444/2012 has been filed against the judgment dated 31.5.2012 passed in Writ Petition No,9361/2012 whereas Intra-Court Appeal No,445/2012 has been filed against judgment dated 31.5.2012 passed in Writ Petition No,9362/2012 by learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Brief facts are that appellants were employees of National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) for 29 years.
The appellant in ICA No,444/2012 was retired on 10.4.2008 whereas appellant in ICA No,445/2012 was retired on 16.1.2008. The NBP on 29.4.2008 approved its promotion policy 2008 (policy) giving promotion to the regular employees of bank from clerical to officer Grade-III Staff and up to EVP Cadre w,e,f,01.1.2008. To give effect to this policy, notification dated 19.8.2008 (notification) was issued by respondents. The appellants claim promotion under aforesaid policy and notification notwithstanding the fact that they already stood retired before said policy and notification. The request of the appellants was not accepted by respondent bank. Resultantly, aforesaid constitutional petitions were filed before learned Single Bench which were dismissed vide order of even date i,e, 31.5.2012. The appellants being aggrieved have filed these appeals.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the policy as well as notification, it was not specifically mentioned that same are not applicable to retired employees, therefore, appellants were entitled for benefit of promotion. Learned counsel further submits that under policy and notification, promotion was w,e,f, 01.1.2008 and appellants being in service on said cut of date, they are also entitled for the same benefit. The learned counsel next contends that matter regarding time scale promotion was under discussion when appellants were in service, therefore, mere fact that policy and notification came after their retirement, cannot be sufficient ground to deprive them of these benefit. Submits that in impugned orders, these aspects of the matter were not considered.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned orders and argued that policy and notification were only applicable to those persons who were in employment of the respondent bank when said policy and notification were issued. He further submits that policy and notification was not applicable to retire employees who are separate class from serving employees.
5. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. The perusal of promotion policy dated 30.6.2008 shows that Board of Directors on 29.4.2008 approved promotion policy 2008 for promotion of regular employees of bank from clerical to officer Grade-III and above. It is no where mentioned in the policy that it will also apply to retire employees. Similarly, the notification dated 19.8.2008 does not expressly prescribe that it will be applicable to retired employees, rather holistic reading of notification shows that it is only applicable to employees in service. In this context, the relevant part of notification for promotion from Officers Grade-III to Officers Grade-I A is reproduced hereunder:--- "OG-III to 0G-II ' All officers in Grade-II are promoted to next higher grade (0G-II)
"OG-II to OG-I ' All officers in Grade-II are promoted to the next higher grade of OG-I subject to their having a minimum Graduate qualification. However, such employees who are going to retire on or before 31.12.2008 will be promoted from OG-II to OG-I irrespective of their qualification as a special case considering their long service in NBP". (underlining by us to emphasize)
Bare perusal of above referred part of notification shows that all officer in Grade-II are promoted to Officer Grade-I, however, such employees who are going to be retired on or before 31.12.2008 will be promoted from Grade-II to Grade-I irrespective of their qualification as a special case, considered their long service in NBP. This shows the intention of the competent authority that notification is only in respect of those employees who are in service and not yet retired.
7. Retired employees are different class from employees in service. It is settled law that retired employees being a separate class from employees in service, any benefit granted by employer to employees in service retrospectively will not be extended to retired employees automatically unless it is specifically granted to retire employees. In this regard, reliance is placed on 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). In instant policy and notification benefit of promotion has not been expressly given retrospectively to retired employees. No doubt notification for time scale promotion being beneficial could be applied retrospectively, however, in said notification unless express intention was shown to benefit retired employees, the said notification could not be given retrospective effect to benefit the appellants.
8. August Supreme Court in Abdul Hameed v. Ministry of Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 395) and Muhammad Aslam Sultan v.
Federation of Pakistan and others. (2006 SCMR 1465) held that civil servant who stood retired cannot be considered for promotion with retrospective effect. Though these judgments are in respect of civil servants, however, in absence of any provision in NBP rules, policy and notification, to the contrary, this principle will apply to appellants as well. The appellants cannot as of right claim promotion after retirement, unless through some express notification or policy such benefit has been extended to the appellants.
9. In view of above discussion, the impugned orders passed by learned Single Judge are well reasoned and based on correct interpretation of law, hence these appeals are dismissed being merit less.