M IANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant appeal the appellant, Waqar Ahmad impugns the judgment dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Judge-in-Chambers whereby writ petition No.1489/2017 filed by the appellant / petitioner was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Through the said writ petition, the appellant had sought a direction to the respondents to grant him proforma promotion with effect from 23.11.2011 with all consequential back benefits.
2. The appellant was a civil servant from the Pakistan Audit and Accounts Services. On 15.04.2015, the appellant retired on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of his retirement, he was a BS-20 officer serving as Chief Finance and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit- Baltistan, Islamabad.
3. The appellant was considered for promotion to BS-21 by the Central Selection Board ("C.S.B.") in its meetings held on 23.09.2011, 24.09.2011 and 03.10.2011 but was recommended to be superseded.
This recommendation was approved by the competent authority i.e., the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
The C.S.B., in its meetings held on 11.02.2013 to 14.02.2013 and 27.02.2013, again considered the appellant for promotion but was again recommended to be superseded. This recommendation was also approved by the competent authority. Yet again the appellant was considered for promotion by the C.S.B. in its meetings held between 11.02.2014 to 13.02.2014. This time round he was recommended to be promoted to BS-21 but the recommendations of the C.S.B. were not approved by the competent authority. It is not disputed that the appellant was informed about this fact vide letter dated 24.02.2017.
4. On 15.04.2015, the appellant retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Be that as it may, the appellant's case for promotion was placed before the C.S.B. in its meetings held on 05.05.2015 to 08.05.2015 and 11.05.2015 but according to the written comments filed by respondent No.3 (the Auditor General of Pakistan), the said minutes were silent about the fate of the appellant's case.
5. The petitioner's case for proforma promotion was placed before the Junior and High Level Committee on FR-17 which, in its meetings dated 08.03.2016 and 25.07.2016, considered the appellant's case and decided that the said Committee was not empowered to promote an officer to a higher post or review the earlier orders of the competent authority. The appellant was informed about the said decision vide letter dated 30.11.2016.
6. Through writ petition No.1489/2017, the appellant sought a direction to the respondents to grant him promotion with effect from 23.11.2011 when officers junior to him were promoted.
7. Now the decision of the competent authority to supersede the appellant in the year 2011 was assailed by the appellant in writ petition No.3511/2011 before this Court which was disposed of vide judgment dated 20.03.2012 by directing the respondents to hold denovo proceedings of the C.S.B. to consider all the superseded and deferred civil servants for promotion. Intra Court appeal No.248/2012 against the judgment of the learned Judge-in-Chambers was dismissed. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant's supersession in the year 2014 had been challenged by him before any forum.
8. The reasons why the competent authority did not agree with the recommendation of the C.S.B. to promote the appellant in 2014 were communicated to him on 24.02.2017. By this time, the appellant had retired from service.
9. The vital question that needs to be answered is whether the appellant had not been considered for promotion between 23.11.2011 (when officers junior to him were promoted) until his retirement on 15.04.2015 (when he retired) for reasons beyond his control. The competent authority while not agreeing with the recommendation of the C.S.B. to promote the appellant had decided that he be considered for promotion in the next meeting of the C.S.B. and to assess him as to the attributes of integrity / general reputation / perception in a comprehensive and objective manner. This decision of the competent authority was made on 20.06.2014. It was not communicated to the appellant until 14.02.2017 when he had already retired from service on 15.04.2015. The appellant had filed writ petition No.1489/2017 on 19.04.2017. Had the decision dated 20.06.2014 or the reasons for the said decision been timely communicated to the appellant, he could have challenged the same before the appropriate forum. It is due to sheer lethargy and incompetence on the part of the Establishment Division and the Office of the Auditor General of Pakistan not to have timely communicated the said decision to the appellant. The said inaction deserves condemnation in the strongest terms. The Establishment Division is directed to henceforth communicate the decisions taken and reasons given by the C.S.B. and/or the High Powered Selection Board to the officers under consideration for promotion without any loss of time.
10. In the instant case, the time period between (when the decision dated 20.06.2014 not to promote the appellant to BS-21) and (when the appellant stood retired from service on 15.04.2015) was ten months. Although while not agreeing with the recommendation of the C.S.B. to promote the appellant to BS-21, the competent authority had ordered that his case be placed for reconsideration by the C.S.B. in its next meeting. The vital question that needs to be answered is whether the appellant can claim for proforma promotion on the ground that he was not considered for promotion to BS-21 in the said ten-month period. There is nothing on the record to show that during the said period a meeting of the C.S.B. had been convened. This being the position, it is our view that the appellant could not seek proforma promotion or to get emoluments for a post against which he had never served as a matter of right. Furthermore, the High Level Committee on FR 17-1 cannot sit in judgment over the decision of the competent authority not to follow the recommendation of the C.S.B.
11. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.