SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 19-7-1989, whereby the appeal preferred by him was dismissed.
2. The petitioner has now superannuated. However, when he was in service, he moved the Service Tribunal for the following reliefs arising out of his employment:-
(1) This Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to graciously order for pro forma promotion as Steno Selection Grade (P.A.) w.e.f. 1-5-1976 with special pay with all sorts of back benefits.
(2) The appellant be designated as Office Superintendent Confidential since 1-7-1978/2-12-1978 and Senior Office Superintendent Confidential w.e.f. 1-6-1983 with fixation of pay as described in para. 2.14 above with all sorts of back benefits including TA. According to the rate of newly-fixed pay.
(3) The appellant may graciouly be ordered to be promoted as Assistant Personnel Officer in BPS. 17 in his turn considering him Office Superintendent Confidential w.e.f. 2-7-1978 and Sr. Officer Superintendent Confidential w.e.f. 1-6-1983 on the basis of 2/3rd quota as admissible under the rules according to the seniority position of appellant.
(4) That the loss of T.A. Due to wrong fixation by a clerk intentionally without any administrative reasons, with retrospective effect may kindly be ordered to be made good according to the rate of pay newly fixed.
(5) That this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to accord any other remedy deemed fit as well as the back benefits on pay and T.A. According to rate of refixed pay."
3. What appears to have been the grievance actually ventilated before the Tribunal at the time of hearing was that on order was passed on 23-1-1988 allowing him promotion to the post of Selection Grade Stenographer (B-14) with retrospective effect from 1-5-1976, the date on which his junior Abdur Rahman had been promoted. Very soon, however, on 9-2-19&g, these orders of promotion were cancelled and he directed the arguments mainly towards this grievance. The Tribunal held that the revocation of his retrospective promotion to the Selection Grade had rightly been ordered because the promotion order of the junior itself had been rescinded, but at the same time his seniority vis-a-vis Abdur Rahman was maintained by observing as hereunder:-- "The appellant continued to be senior to Abdur Rahman and that is why the appellant was promoted to B-14 post in 1978 whereas Abdur Rahman was allowed that grade in 1984."
4. As regards the claim to promotion or pro forma promotion, what the petitioner could claim under the law was, that he should be considered when the question of promotion is taken up. He cannot call upon the Service Tribunal to direct the Department to fill the promotion post forthwith or on a particular date and not to keep it vacant or under consideration. It is not the case of the petitioner that someone else was promoted and lie was excluded and not considered for promotion taut that lie was kept too long on the acting charge of promoted post without making regular promotion on that post. As long as his charge was not full and promotion was not regular, the petitioner could not claim the full pay of the post nor the other benefits as could be available to a rightful incumbent of it.
5. In the circumstances we find that no case for leave to appeal is made out and the same is refused,