S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, (CHAIRMAN).-Muhammad Israr Nabi, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Province of Punjab through the Secretary SGA&I Department; Lahore, the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department. Lahore, Chief Engineer, Punjab Buildings Department, Lahore, the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore and the Accountant General, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that he may be conferred pro forma promotion from 1st July, 1972 to 10th June, 1980 and for this period he be considered working as S. D. O. And not as Sub- Engineer.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was promoted as officiating S. D.
0. Alongwith 105 S. D. Os. In the year 1963. While rest of the colleagues were inducted into service in the year 1972. He along-with some of the counter-parts were compulsorily retired in March, 1979 under M. L. R.
114. The appellant filed appeal against the said order and was reinstated into service vide judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 24th February, 1980. The department however, paid the arrears of pay by treating him as Sub-Engineer from 1st July, 1972 to 10th June, 1980 and rest as S. D.
0. The appellant however, agitated before the Governments/respondents that he should be considered as S.D.O. For the said period i,e, from 1st July, 1972 to 10th June, 1980, because when he Was removed from service under M.L.R.-114, he was working as S.D.O. In this matter it would be useful to mention that the appellant filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court and Mr. Justice Gul Muhammad Khan vide his order, dated 14th December, 1982, laid down certain instructions with regard to the period relating to the claim of the appellant. The appellant aggrieved against the said order went before the Supreme Court of Pakistan who vide their order, dated 7th December, 1981, observed that the High Court was not competent to specify the particular period and should have left this matter to the Department to calculate the same according to the rules laid down in this behalf. However, the appellant was told to approach the Service Tribunal with regard to his claim as it related to the terms and conditions of his service.
Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the appellant in person who has pleaded his case vigorously and have also amended to the arguments of the learned District attorney assisted by the representative of the Department.
5. The main claim of the appellant in this case is that as he was working as S.D.O. On the date when he was retired under M.L.R.-114, therefore, he would be liable to join the same post when he was so reinstated under the order of the predecessor Tribunal. It has been vehemently argued by the appellant that the Department was not empowered to refuse him this benefit and to treat him as Sub-Engineer for the period under dispute as he was never a Sub-Engineer that time. He has also made a grievance that persons junior to him in rank have since been promoted in service as S. D. 0, but the Department is adament to treat him as Sub-Engineer during the period he remained out of service.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the claim of the appellant is highly misconceived on the following grounds :-
(1) Appellant basically being an ad hoc S. D.
0. Had to be extended in service as laid down in the Rules but such like extension was not made in his favour at the time when he was retired from service under M. L. R.-114.
(2) The case of the appellant was considered for pro forma promotion by the Department Promotion Committee but the same was rejected. Learned District Attorney has elaborated the point so mentioned above, by submitting that the pro forma promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and once a case of a civil servant has been considered and rejected this Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to direct the respondents to confer pro forma promotion on such a civil servant. It has been further submitted by the learned District Attorney that the rules of ad hoc appointments are very clear and unless and until a person is regularised in service, the offer of six months ad hoc appointment, would mean that the Government has refused to regularise him as permanent incumbent.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have found from the record that the appellant's case came for consideration for his pro forma promotion as claimed by him before the S&GAI Department but the same was rejected vide their letter dated 15th February, 1981, which is available on the departmental file. With this established fact on the record which has also been averred by the respondents in their written statement before this Tribunal, we have no other alternative but to hold that the appellant's case was considered by his superiors and stood rejected. In these circumstances, we have no dispute with the arguments so advanced by the learned District Attorney that no body can claim pro forma promotion as a right and once the same bad been considered and rejected the Service Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to confer the same.
8. So far as the second point raised by the learned District Attorney that the appellant was an ad hoc S.D.O. And his period of ad hoc appointment was never extended in his favour, therefore, he was likely to be reverted back to his substantive post of Sub-Engineer, we have satisfied ourselves from the record that the stand taken by the learned District Attorney is correct.
9. In view of the above analysis of the claim so put-forth by the appellant, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.