ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, J. This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the impugned Order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers in Writ Petition No.3042/2018.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the Appellant was appointed as Area Manager "A" Category with the State Life Insurance Corporation (the "SLIC"), Sahiwal Zone under Regulation No. 4(ii) of the State Life Insurance Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973 (the "Regulations").
The Appellant was terminated from service on account of poor-performance on 26.04.2001. Later on, be was reinstated into service with back benefits vide Judgment dated 18A0.2004 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal. In Appeal, the Apex Court upheld the said Judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal vide Judgment dated 18.03.2010 which has been reported as "Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation and others v. Hamayun Irian and 2 others" (2010 SCMR 1495).
3. In the meanwhile, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 513 / 2007 for implementation of the Judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal seeking back benefits and proforma promotion which was disposed of vide Order dated 13.04.2015 in the following terms:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner does not controvert the fact with regard to the above said payment but submits that the respondents have not granted him proforma promotion and for this purpose the petitioner would file a proper application before the departmental authorities.
In view of the above, the petitioner may file an application seeking proforma promotion before the competent authority. It is expected that the departmental authority after having received the petitioner's application for grant of proforma promotion shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law; after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned and through a speaking order. With this observation, this Petition stands disposed of."
4. The Appellant, accordingly filed an Application before the Chairman, SLIC which as stated aforesaid was limited to entitlement of the Appellant for the grant of proforma promotion. The said representation was declined vide Order dated 15.10.2015. The operating paragraphs Nos. 4 and 5 read as follows:- "4. Apart from proforma promotion one of the conditions of the criteria for promotion from Area Manager to Manager (Marketing) in State Life is that the candidate should have four years period of association as "A" Category Area Manager. If the date of appointment of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor is considered as 25-08-1999, he could have been eligible for consideration for promotion as Manager (Marketing) in 2004 on the basis of the year closed on 31-12-2003. As he was not in service during that period, no business performance to meet the criteria exists for consideration.
5. However, a copy of prevailing criteria for promotion as Manager (Marketing) was provided to him after hearing on demand, as he expressed his willingness to qualify in the forthcoming years."
5. The Appellant again filed a miscellaneous application before the Federal Service Tribunal for implementation of its Judgment dated 18.10.2004 regarding proforma promotion which was dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2017. It was conclusively held therein that the Judgment dated 18.10.2004 (supra) stood implemented as the Appellant had already been reinstated into service with back benefits. Although, the proforma promotion is an incident of back benefits yet the grant of proforma promotion is not mentioned in the Judgment sought to be implemented. The representation of the Appellant regarding proforma promotion has already been rejected by the Chairman SLIC vide Order dated 15.10.2015, therefore, the Appellant, if aggrieved, may avail appropriate legal remedy.
6. In the above backdrop, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 3042 / 2018 on 27.02.2018 with the following prayer:- "In view of the above submissions, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that by accepting this petition, impugned order dated 15.10.2017 (Annexure-C) may kindly be declared as illegal and without lawful authority and the same be set-aside.
It is further prayed that an appropriate writ may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant proforma promotion to the petitioner as Manager (Marketing) w.e.f the date of promotion of his junior i.e. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf and Altaf Hussain, with all consequential benefits.
Any other relief which this Honorable Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner."
7. Learned Single Judge in Chambers dismissed the same vide impugned Order dated 26.02.2019.
The operating part contained in paragraphs Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the, impugned Order is reproduced below:- "5. Undeniably, issue regarding existence of any statutory rules regarding promotion has already been resolved by learned Division Bench of this Court, in negative, vide order dated 17.07.2006, passed in LC.A. No. 146 of 2001 titled Abdul Waheed v. Chairman State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan which is reproduced hereinbelow: "The Appellant was an employee of the respondent-Corporation; he proceeded on the Leave Preparatory to Retirement on 15.12.1998; but before that, he filed a representation claiming the promotion as the Manager, S&D; this has been declined to the appellant, on the ground that he has already opted for the LPR; the appellant after filing the departmental representation, brought a Writ Petition No.22360 of 1999, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber, on 8.2.2001 by holding "It is admitted by both the learned counsel that there is no statutory provision, in the strict juristic sense touching the controversy. The petitioner can only succeed if he could demonstrate that the denial of the promotion to him is violative of any statutory provisions. In the absence of any strict statutory provision, I venture to hold that Board of Directors could proceed to take a policy decision."
2. When questioned, if there are any statutory rules regarding the promotion, learned counsel for the appellant, has made reference to The State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, these rules have been perused but there is no reference to the promotion. Obviously, in such circumstances, there is no illegality or error in the judgment of learned Single Judge, in chamber, calling for interference in an Infra Court Appeal.
Dismissed."
6. Even otherwise, impugned order was passed on 15.10.2015, whereas instant petition has been filed on 27.02.2018 with an inordinate delay of almost 02-years and 04-months. Petitioner has failed to put forth any convincing material, which may justify filing of instant petition after such considerable period. Thus, instant petition is vividly hit by (aches as no cogent, convincing or justified reasons have been disclosed for such a long delay.
7. Resultantly, instant petition, being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs."
8. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that in fact the case of the Appellant was not regarding violation of any non statutory rule, rather the matter pertained to entitlement of the Appellant regarding his proforma promotion which was inbuilt in the Judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal and he was seeking implementation of the said Judgment. Since the Appellant was reinstated with back benefits by the Federal Service Tribunal, it ipso facto meant that the Appellant was entitled to all back benefit which also include seniority and proforma promotion. The lack of service record for 04 years cannot be made basis for denial of his right to proforma promotion in view of case titled, "Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi and others v. Siddiq Akbar" (2013 PLC (C. S.) 1136), wherein, it has been held that when a dismissed employee was reinstated into service by setting aside the dismissal order, 'then the period during which employee remained dismissed was to be considered as period the 'remained in service'. He also contended that laches was wrongly attributed to the Appellant since he has been diligently pursuing his case for proforma promotion and after the impugned Order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the Chairman, SLIC he filed an Application before the Federal Service Tribunal far the implementation of its Judgment which was disposed of on 19.04.2017, whereafter, he filed the Writ Petition in which the impugned Order was passed.
9. The facts of the case reproduced above manifestly show that the Judgment dated 18.10.2004 was limited to reinstatement of the Appellant into service with back benefits. This did not include proforma promotion which was based on eligibility-cum-fitness criteria This was clearly held by the Federal Service Tribunal and was also known to the Appellant which prompted him to file the first Writ Petition No. 513 / 2007 before this Court in which he was directed to file an Application for grant of proforma promotion. The Appellant, accordingly, filed the Application which was declined by the Chairman, SLIC vide Order dated. 15.10.2015. Apparently, the Appellant initially acquiesced and accepted the said Order but later as an afterthought challenged the same on 27.02.2018 through Writ Petition No. 3042 / 2018 after a considerable delay of more than 02 years and 04 months.
10. Admittedly, the SLIC is a commercial statutory corporation established under the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972. Under Article 49 of the said Order, the SLIC framed the Regulations which were declared as statutory and enforceable in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in the case of the Appellant, Hamayun Irfan referred supra. However, there is no provision regarding promotion in the Regulations which may have vested a right to the Appellant to IA enforce the same in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. This position has been confirmed in case titled, "Mehboob Alam v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and others" decided in Writ Petition No. 5136 of 2006 vide Judgment dated 26.01.2017 and case titled, "Abdul Waheed v.
Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan" decided in I.C.A. No.146 of 2001 vide Judgment dated 17.07.2006. Moreover, the SLIC is a professional and commercial organization which has devised its own eligibility-cum-fitness criteria regarding promotion of its employees which is based on length of service and achievements or completion of business targets. As such, the SLIC is the best judge for promotion of its officials and the Court cannot give its own findings to substitute with the findings of any specialized institution like the SLIC. In case titled, "Mazullah Khan v. Zonal Head, State Life Insurance Corporation, Peshawar and others" (2008 SCMR 617), it was held as under:- "It is an admitted fact that Appellant's performance for the year 1997 was poor. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent's Corporation is a Commercial Organization whose existence depends on the performance of its employees. His appointment order, dated 24-7-1995 (relevant para reproduced above), clearly stressed on the performance standards and in case of poor performance or the performance falling short of the prescribed standards, the competent authority was competent to terminate the appellant's services under regulations mentioned in the show-cause notice, which has been reproduced above. The appellant has not been able to show any illegality in the same."
This view was followed in case titled, 'State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and others v.
Syed Hassan Ali Shah and others' (2010 SCMR 1381) in the following words:- "7. It would be out of context to note that as far as performance standard is concerned, it is in fact the condition prescribed under the Regulation No.4 (ii) (c) (I) and (2) of the Regulations, 1973. As it has been noted in case of Mazullah Khan (ibid) that the petitioner organization is commercial one, therefore, its employees are bound to' show performance otherwise, it would be difficult for the organization to continue its existence, therefore, in such like situation where commercial activity is the basis for running of the same, the relevant rules / regulations are to be construed / applied and incorporated strictly."
11. It follows from the above that the promotion standards devised by a commercial institution are distinctly and conspicuously different than those applicable to Civil Servants. The Board of Directors of the SLIC is the competent authority to devise performance standards from time to time in the best interest of the institution which are monitored and reviewed under the prescribed timelines. Hence, the finding of the Chairman, SLIC to the effect that since no performance standards were available regarding the Appellant with respect to his Application for grant of proforma promotion, therefore, he cannot be considered for the same, is unexceptional and cannot be questioned in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The precise question of Notion from Area Manager to Manager (Marketing) was also examined by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No 214-P of 2017 in case titled, "Muhammad Islam v. Chairman Pakistan State Life Insurance Corporation, Pakistan and others" decided on 11.12.2017. The eligibility-cum- fitness criteria for promotion was thoroughly examined in said Judgment and it was held that when an employee is considered for promotion under the applicable criteria but he does not cross the threshold prescribed by the criteria, he cannot turn around to say that he be considered at par with the others under the criteria which was previously enforced. Hence, the Siddiq Akbar case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the Appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case since the question of proforma promotion was not resolved in the said case.
Therefore, learned Single Judge in Chambers rightly reached to the conclusion that impugned Order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the Chairman, SLIC was unexceptional.
12. Similarly, it is established from record that the impugned Order dated 15.10.2015 (inadvertently written in the prayer clause of this Appeal and W.P. No.3042/2018 as 15.10.2017) was assailed in Writ Petition No. 3042/2018 which was filed on 27.02.2018 after a lapse of more than 02 years and 04 months and in this context the learned Single Judge in Chambers aptly held that the Writ Petition was hit by laches. It is trite, law that the rule of ladies is applied in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case keeping in view the equitable principles. Certainly in view of the facts of the instant case, the Appellant moved this Court after an inordinate delay without any lawful justification. Where the Court applied the rule of laches, normally reasonable time to E approach the Court is held to be three months. For reference, see case titled, "Mian Aurangzeb Noor v. Rent Controller, Lahore and another" (2012 CLC 1729). As such, the Appellant was effectively estopped from his conduct to question the impugned order dated 15.10.2015. Further seeking proforma promotion in terms of Judgment dated 18.10.2004 of the Federal Service Tribunal initially through W.P. No. 513/2007 and later through a miscellaneous Application before the Federal Service Tribunal also demonstrates that the Appellant approached this Court by filing W.P. No.3042/2018 with unclean hands.
13. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 26-2-2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber is in consonance with law and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which may call for any Interference. Hence, the same is upheld. Accordingly, this Intra Court Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.