ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J. By invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakista n, 1973, the petitioners, who are serving Officers of Management Cadre in the Health Department Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, seeks issuance of the following writ:- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition the Honourable court may be pleased to:
(1) Declare the discriminatory treatment and not upgrading the petitioners to BPS.18, as illegal, unconstitutional, discriminatory , against the principle of equity and equality and fair play; and
(2) To direct the respondents to upgrade the petitioners to BPS.18 with all back and consequential benefits from the date when the other posts of BPS.17 in Management Cadre have been upgraded to PBS.18.
(3) Any other remedy which this august court deems appropriate may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner .
2. In essence, grievance of the petitioners is that on the recommendation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission, they were appointed by the competent authority against the vacant posts of Management Cadre BPS.17 vide different notifications dated 11.04.2016 and 14.02.20216, respectively . Subsequently , in light of minutes of the meeting held on 11.11.2-2014, under the Chairmanship of worthy Chief Minister regarding nationalization of Health Department, various posts of Management Cadre were upgraded to BPS.18, as a result, the incumbents who joined service later than the petitioners were appointed against the upgraded posts, whereas, no upgradation was granted to the petitioners. For redressal of their grievance, the petitioners filed appeal before the competent authority , but the same has not been responded till date, hence, this writ petition.
3. Initially comments of the respondents were called, which were accordingly filed by them, wherein the writ sought by the petitioner has been partially denied.
4. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners produced a copy of Notification dated 19th July, 2021 issued by the respondents and contended that no doubt through the notification (ibid) the posts of the petitioners have been upgraded from BPS.17 to BPS.18 but with immediate effect, therefore, the petitioners are still facing discrimination, hence, requested for upgradation of the posts of the petitioners with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of notification dated 09.09.2016 whereby posts of DHIS Coor dinator were upgraded by the respondents from BPS.17 to 18.
5. We are not persuaded by the argumen ts of learned counsel for the petitioners for the reasons that there is no law for grant of ante-dated upgradation. There is no cavil to the proposition that upgradation cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but it is in fact, based on a policy decision of the Provincial Government which never involves any advancement in rank or grade for the purpose of seniority , rather , upgradation simply confers some monetary benefit by granting a higher pay scale, merely to ventilate stagnation. The benefit of upgradation can only be granted to an employee working in a dead cadre for an indefinite period without having any window for promotion, as such, being not a vested right cannot be granted retrospectively .
6. As stated above, there is no Statutory provisions in Service Laws or Rules for upgradation of a civil servant to the higher scale, rather the Provincial Government has devised a Policy for the benefit of those employees serving in one grade for or more than ten years without any prospect of promotion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled, "Regional Commissioner Income Tax versus Syed Munawar Ali C (2016 SCMR 859) has held that the expression "up-gradation" is distin ct from the promotion which is not defined either in the Civil Servants Act or the Rules framed thereunder which is restricted to the posts and not with the person occupying it. Likewise, in the case of Federal Public Service Commission through Secretary vs. Anwar-ul-Haq (Private Secretary)
Islamabad and others (2017 SCMR 890), the august apex court was pleased to hold that the matter of up- gradation is always carried out under a policy and specified scheme. It is resorted only for the incumbents of isolated posts, which have no avenues or channel of promotion at all. Up-gradation under the scheme is personal to the incumbents of the isolated posts to address stagnation and frustration of incumbent having status quo position on a particular post for sufficient length of service without any progression or avenue of promotion. In a recent judgment, rendered in CIVIL APPEAL NO.465 OF 2021, titled, "Fida Muhammad Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Secretary of Education, Peshawar & others" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is a meticulous differentiation stuck between upgradation and promo tion. The promotion involves advancement in rank, grade or a footstep en-root for advancement to higher position whereas the facility or benefit of upgradation simply confers some monetary benefits by granting a higher pay scale to ventilate stagnation. In an upgradation, the candidate continues to hold the same post without any change in his duties but he is accorded a higher pay scale. It is also well settled exposition of law that the benefit of upgradation is normally granted to the persons stuck-up in one pay-scale for considerable period of their length of service either having no venue for promotion or progression.
7. In case in hand it is admitted position that petitioners were not possessing the requisite ten years length of service for upgradation, therefore, initially they could not be considered along with others. On completion of the requisite length of service, the petitioners have been upgraded to BPS.18 vide notification dated 19.07.2021, with immediate effect as such we do not find any justification for interference in the impugned order or to issue direction for considering the case of the petitioners for grant of ante-dated upgradation.
8. Accordingly , this writ petition stands dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.