Asim Akram, Member. Through the appeal at hand the appellant has challenged the order dated 17.09.2020 whereby the appellant's appeal for grant of proforma promotion to BS-18 was refused.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was retired from service on 18.02.2019 upon attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement he filed an appeal for grant of proforma promotion to BS-18 on merit-cum-fitness basis. In the departmental appeal the appellant has stated that after his retirement two DPCs meeting were held in the year, 2019 in which certain officers were considered for promotion to BS-18. The appellant alleges that the vacancy in BS-18 existed prior to his retirement so he should be given proforma promotion.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the post/vacancy in BS-18 existed before the retirement of the appellant and any delay in convening the DPC during his service was not the fault of the appellant. As per memo. of appeal, the appellant has already applied to the competent authority for promotion to the next higher grade through departmental representation dated 16.03.2018 but the same was never responded.
3. The respondents have contested the appeal on the grounds that no junior was promoted in higher grade prior to the retirement of the appellant and no illegality has been committed while passing the impugned order. The appellant has no cause of grievance while filing this appeal as he was not in service when the DPC in question was convened.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is an admitted fact in the departmental appeal as well as the service appeal at hand that promotions in BS-18 were made in furtherance of the DPC held after the retirement of the appellant.
No junior of the appellant has been promoted to high grade before his retirement. As per the reply filed by the respondents 49 Assistant Collector (BS-17) were considered for promotions however 28 officers were recommended for promotion vide different notifications. Whereas the appellant was at Serial No 92 on the seniority list of BS-17 and was not considered due to non-viability of vacancies. Also the appellant after retirement has received all the pensionary benefits in BS-17 without any protest.
6. The departmental representation, as alleged by the appellant in the memo of appeal, was filed on 16.03.2018 does not amount to representation as the same only states about eligibility of the appellant for consideration of promotion in BS-18. Also, the same has not been filed through proper channel, as required by law. Through the said letter the appellant states that he has completed 5 years service as Assistant Collector (BS-17), which is mandatory requirement for promotion in higher grade, hence his promotion case be considered. Neither, the availability of vacant post has been mentioned in the said letter nor the same was perused by the appellant till his retirement. In light of all these infirmities this alleged representation dies of its own.
7. The application/departmental appeal which was filed by the appellant' after retirement for grant of proforma promotion in higher grade was considered by Junior Level Committee of FR-17(1), The Committee disagree with the appellant's stance and decision was communicated to him through impugned order. The controversy regarding proforma promotion has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Ashiq Ali Bhatti Appellant versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division and others-- Respondents (2006 SCMR 1324) the relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: 7...........it is true that civil servants who are on deputation on ex cadre post they are held to be entitled to pro forma promotion in their absence from the parent department or in a case when serving civil servant has earned adverse entries in his ACR as a result of which he has not been promoted on that account but later on the said adverse entries are expunged then the civil servant could claim pro forma promotion from the date he became due for promotion or his batchmates were promoted. But in the instant case, the petitioner has retired on attaining his superannuation and thereafter he withdrew his pensionary and other benefits in his grade BPS-18 which were awarded to him on 17-9-1995. It may also be observed that the intention underlying "pro forma promotions" is to protect the interest of the Government servant only in circumstances where the Government servant is required to sever away from his parent cadre because of definite requirement of public interest and not merely to suit his own interest.................. ......................... Suffice it to say that in case of question of fitness, the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal is excluded as such the appellant having retired from service his fitness cannot be determined' for the period for which a claim for promotion is made. It may also be observed that policy of move- over has discontinued since long, therefore, question of move-over of the appellant from BPS-18 to BPS-19 would also not arise.
8. Reliance can also be placed on the case titled as Government of Pakistan through Establishment Division Islamabad and others v. Hameed Akhtar Niazi, Academy of Administrative Training, Walton Lahore and others (PLD 2003 SC 110) wherein it was held that retrospective pro forma promotion in respect of retired officer is not admissible under the rules. The relevant para of the same is read as under: "Virtually, it is not a case of antedation, but of granting promotion from back date to the retired officers, which could not be done under the rules."
9. A similar stance has also been retireated in the Lahore High Court vide its judgment passed by then justice Mr. Umer Ata Ban dial in the case titled as Dilawar Ali and another vs. General Manager Pakistan Railways, Lahore (2006 PLC(CS)1034). The relevant portion of the said judgment is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "2. Promotion from back date is not admissible to a retired civil servant under the law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Aslam Sultan vs. GM Pakistan, Railways (2005 PLC(CS)1400)."
10. Apart from the above, it is stated by the appellant that he became eligible for promotion in the year, 2018 but he filed their representation/departmental appeal after attaining the age of superannuation and subsequently filed the instant appeal in the year; 2021 after a lapse of almost three years. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to explain such delay in filing the instant appeal after his retirement. Reliance is placed on the case reported as titled as Muhammad Asghar Rana vs. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore (2008 SCMR 663) wherein it has been held that indolent and negligent officials are not entitled to any indulgence from the Courts.
11. In any case the learned counsel for the appellant was asked to show as to how the appellant was entitled to grant of proforma promotion but he has not been able to show any material in this Respect. In this regard, the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, are of no help to the appellant. Hence, the stance taken by the Junior Level Committee of FR-17(1) while considering the proforma promotion of the appellant is in line and length of the guidelines of the FR-17(1) Committee and the precedent referred above. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the appellate impugned order dated 17.09.2020. Hence, the instant appeal not only lacks merit but also barred by time which is hereby dismissed.
12. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.