RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER).---The appellant (Tariq Shafiq Khan) had stated that after clearing 1974 CSS Examination, he had been appointed in B-17 in the Commerce and Trade Group. In August, 1986, he was appointed on acting charge basis against a B-19 post in the C&T Group, because by then he did not possess 12 years of requisite length of service which was to be completed on 29-12-1986. Later on he had regularly been promoted to B-19 post on 14-1-1988 instead of 30-12-1986 i.e. w.e.f. The date he had completed 12 years service in B-17 and above.
2. He had given a brief account. Of the meetings of the Central Selection Board II wherein the appellant and his senior and junior colleagues had been appointed on acting charge basis,/regularly promoted to B-19 posts as under:-- (i)Meeting of CSB-II held on 12-3-1986- The appellant had been cleared by the Board for acting charge appointment as Deputy Director EPB (B-19) alongwith some of his senior and junior colleagues, because he did not then possess the requisite length of service and he had accordingly been, appointed as Deputy Director (B-19) on acting charge basis w.e.f. 3-8-1986.
(ii) Meeting of CSB-II held on 16-3-1987 Although the appellant had completed the length of service on 29-12-1986 and regular promotion vacancies were also available, but he was allowed to continue with the said acting charge instead of regular promotion in B-19 w.e.f. 30-12-1986. Despite the fact that his service record was good/very good, yet he had not been given regular promotion; whereas some of his senior colleagues had been promoted on regular basis.
(iii) Meeting of CSB-11 held on 9-12-1987: The appellant was cleared for regular promotion as Deputy Director (B-19) alongwith his other colleagues and he had been appointed as such w.e.f. 14-1-1988.
The appellant had brought out at Bar that in the second meeting of the C.S.B: II held on 16-3-1987 he was eligible for regular promotion as Deputy Director (B-19), as he had already completed 12 years service on 29-12-1986, but he was not given regular promotion and instead was allowed to continue with the same acting charge appointment. He had mentioned that promotion vacancies were also available, his service record was good/very good and his seniority sequence number did warrant his case for consideration of regular promotion (as many of his senior colleagues were on deputation with Pak. Foreign Missions), he was mala fidely ignored for such consideration and left to continue with the acting charge as Deputy Director. Although on ground none of his juniors had been promoted from C&T Group earlier than him; but, since he had been transferred to work as Deputy Secretary (B-19) in the Secretariat Group, wherein his other colleagues coming as Deputy Secretaries from Office Management, District Management, Police, Customs, Income-tax, Information, Accounts and Postal Groups etc. Relating to his 1974 CSS Batch who had got their regular promotions to B-19 posts by end of 198Jbeginning of 1987 after completion of 12 years service would evidently stand senior to him on common platform of the Secretariat Group, because he had been promoted during January. 1988 i.e. 1-1/4 years later than his batch-mates of 1974 Groups for no fault of his own.
3. The appellant had elaborated, had there been no meeting (ii) of the Board held on 16-3-1987 i.e. And only the meeting (i) of Board of 12-3-1986 (wherein he was given acting charge appointment as Deputy Director due to shortage in length of service) and the meeting (iii) of Board of 9-12-1987 (wherein he was given regular promotion as Deputy Director, as his length of service had earlier been completed on 29-12-1986 had taken place, there would have been neither an ill-feeling with him nor any violation of rules for continuation of his acting charge up to 14-1-1988 i.e. The date of his regular promotion. He had explained that continuation of acting charge after meeting (ii) of Board, when he had completed the length of service and vacancies of Deputy Director were available, was violative of the relevant rules and not sustainable; because continuation in the acting charge appointment of Deputy Director beyond 16-3-1987 (after meeting (ii) of the Board till meeting (iii) of the Board on 9-12-1987), wherein he had been recommended for regular promotion, was clear indication that a vacancy of Deputy Director to meet his seniority sequence/number had continuously been existing from the very date of acting charge w.e.f. 3-8-1986 till his regular promotion w.e.f. 14-1-1988.
4. He had, therefore, requested that since w.e.f. The date (i.e. 30-12-1986) he had completed 12 yearn of service in B-17 and above and under the relevant rules he was eligible and entitled to regular promotion as Deputy Director (B--19) instead of continuing with the acting charge appointment as Deputy Director (B-19) up to 14-1-1988 (i.e. The date of his regular promotion), as such his appeal be accepted and his promotion be ante-dated from 14-1-1988 to 30-12-1986 with all benefits.
5. The learned counsel and representative from the respondent Divisions had stated that there was no real cause of grievance with the appellant who had rightly, in order of his seniority number, been given acting charge appointment as Deputy Director (B-19) w.e.f. 3-8-1986 and regular promotion as Deputy Director (B-19) w.e.f. 14-1-1988. They had also given a brief account of the three meetings of the Board vis-a-vis appellant's clearance/appointment as Deputy Director on acting charge basis and his clearance/promotion as Deputy Director on regular basis as under:-- (i)Meeting of CSB-II held on 12-3-1986: 5 vacancies of Deputy Director (B-19) were available and the Board had cleared 5 officers including the appellant for acting charge appointment, as none of them had completed requisite length of 12 years service. Since the senior officers who had completed the length of service and were eligible for promotion had been posted in Pak. Foreign Missions abroad on deputation, they had not been given regular promotion but deferred/or given pro forma promotion.
(ii) Meeting of CSB-II held on 16-3-1987: 7 vacancies of Deputy Directors were available and 7 officers senior to the appellant had been promoted. Although the appellant had completed the length of service, but there was no vacancy available for promotion except deputation vacancies of officers working abroad.
(iii) Meeting of CSB-II held on 9-12-1987 13 vacancies of Deputy Director (B-19) were available and the appellant including his seniors and juniors had been given regular promotion w.e.f.14-1-1988.
Therefore, as is evident from the above meetings, no junior of the appellant had been promoted earlier and, as soon as a vacancy for regular promotion to meet his seniority number had become available and he had completed the length of service, he had been promoted as Deputy Director (B-19) on regular basis w.e.f. 14-1-1988. As such there was no real cause of grievance with the appellant and the appeal be dismissed:
6. Upon an observation, if there was no vacancy of Deputy Director (B--19) available (when his seniors had been abroad on deputation); why he was allowed to continue with the acting charge appointment from the very beginning i.e. w.e.f. 3-8-1986 and more particularly w.e.f. The second meeting of the Board held on 16-3-1987, when he had already completed the length of service on 29-12-1986; because this showed that during the period of his acting charge appointment till his regular promotion, a vacancy of Deputy Director (B-19) had continuously been existing to keep the appellant afloat as Deputy Director on acting charge basis. Had there been no vacant post of Deputy Director during the said period, whether on regular basis or caused by leave/deputation of his seniors who had remained abroad in Pak. Foreign Mission, so under the relevant rules and spirit of promotion policy, he was not eligible for acting charge appointment w.e.f. The second meeting of the Board, but eligible and entitled to regular promotion. The learned counsel and the representative from the respondent-Divisions could not give any satisfactory answer.
7. Therefore, under the aforementioned facts of the case, it is established that a vacant post of Deputy Director had continuously and practically been existing to match appellant's seniority sequence/number right from 3-8-1986 to 14-1-1988, whether appellant's seniors, after their promotion as Deputy Director, remained in Pakistan serving the Department or whether his seniors remained abroad in Pak Foreign Missions enjoying promotion, pro forma promotion or deferment, he could not technically and under the relevant rules be allowed to continue with the acting charge appointment beyond second meeting of the board held on 16-3-1987, when he had completed the length of service and he could be considered on the basis of his good/very good service record for regular promotion, when the vacancies were also available.
(a) This had also been recommended by the Ministry of Commerce vide letter dated 6-1-1987, and
(b) The Board in its meeting (ii) held on 16-3-1987, had also confirmed the availability of vacancies.
An extract from para. 2 at page 14 of the minutes is reproduced below:-- The Board cleared all these 7 officers for promotion to posts in pay scale 19 in the Trade and Commerce Group. These officers are, however, posted in missions abroad and their promotion will take effect after they return to Pakistan and resume duty in the parent cadre."
8. Although a cause of grievance with the appellant to keep him continuing with the acting charge appointment w.e.f. 3-8-1986 to 14-1-1988 was not so dominant and apparent, but particularly after passing him over from regular promotion in the second meeting, there did exist a real and practical cause of grievance to ignore him from promotion and to place him junior to his batch- mates of 1974 Groups viz. O.M., D.M., Customs, Income-tax and Accounts etc., when he and his other colleagues were transferred/inducted to work on the common platform/cadre of the Secretariat Group as Deputy Secretary (B-19). He would then be placed much below them, because his counter-parts/colleagues of 1974 batch groups by that time would already have been promoted to B-19 posts by the end of 1986/beginning of 1987 after completion of 12 years service, whereas he got his regular promotion during January, 1988 i.e. 1-1/4 years later than them for no fault of his own.
9. We, therefore, accept the appeal to the extent that the respondent-- Divisions shall consider to ante-date the appellant's promotion as Deputy Director (B-19) placing him junior to the seniors promoted as a result of Board's meeting (ii) held on 16-3-1987, while considering the seniors in promotion, in pro forma promotion or in deferment etc. And with all consequential actions and the appellant shall have no right of seniority over his such seniors, except if otherwise allowed under relevant rules.
10, No order for costs. Parties be informed.