ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).-- Appellant Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed, Budget and Accounts Officer, has preferred this appeal for the following reliefs:
(1) To bring the appellant at par with his juniors for 3 years through allowing pro forma promotion as Senior Budget and Accounts Officer (BPS-18) with retrospective effect from 4-2-1990 a date when his juniors were promoted.
(2) To allow the period of 3 years for passing departmental promotion examination from the date of taking over charge of the post of BPS--18.
(3)To allow financial benefits from the date of repatriation to WAPDA i.e. 27-6-1981.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the services of the appellant were transferred to Mechanized Construction of Pakistan Limited (MCPL) with effect from 1-9-1974 and he stayed there till 18-6-1981 when he was repatriated to WAPDA and there he was given regular posting with effect from 23-6-1984. During the period of his deputation with the MCPL certain officers junior to him were promoted to B-17, therefore, he after exhausting departmental remedy, preferred Appeal No. 4(R)88 before this Tribunal which was allowed by its judgment dated 15-4- 1989 and it was directed that the case of the appellant for pro forma promotion to B-17 be considered. The respondent WAPDA filed Civil Appeal No. 510 of 1989 before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment-dated 11-12- 1991, and the judgment of Tribunal was upheld. Accordingly, the respondent Authority implemented the decision of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court by granting pro forma promotion to the appellant from B-16 to BPS-17 with effect from 1978 with consequential benefits subject to the following conditions:
(i) His pro forma promotion for the period he remained in MCP and the period he worked as Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer in WAPDA will be without financial benefit. He would, however, draw financial benefit as Budget and Accounts Officer (BPS-17) from the date he assumes charge of the higher post in WAPDA.
(ii) He will have to qualify the prescribed Departmental Promotion Examination for promotion as Budget and Accounts Officer (BPS-17) within three years from the date of taking over charge of the higher post. In case of failure, he will be reverted as Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer (BPS-16),
(iii) Promotion order will not confer on the promotee officer any right of seniority/promotion over those who may be found subsequently senior to him and have not been considered in the present selection.
The appellant brought another Appeal No. 347(R)/1992 more or less for the same reliefs as claimed in earlier Appeal No. 4(R)/88, but the same was dismissed on the ground that no appeal or review lies before the Tribunal against its decision or the decision of the Supreme Court for the same cause of 'action, by judgment dated 3-2-1993.
3. There was a third round of litigation and the- appellant filed the instant appeal for pro forma promotion from back date.
4. Mr. Syed Manzar Alam, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of WAPDA, and submitted that the case of the appellant for promotion to B-18 was considered by the Selection Board at its meetings on 4-5-1993 and 29-11-1993, but he was found unfit as he had not qualified the Departmental Promotion Examination, which is the mandatory requirement for promotion to B-18.
He filed comments and annexed therewith the minutes of the Selection Boards. He submitted that under proviso (b) to section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the appeal is not maintainable.
5. The above stated facts do bear out that the case of the appellant was duly considered for promotion to B-18 by the Selection Board and since he had not passed the Departmental Promotion Examination, a prerequisite for promotion to B-18, he was found unfit for promotion. This having been done and his eligibility for promotion having been considered/determined by the competent Authority, he has no grievance which could be agitated before us, and this appeal under proviso (b) to section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.