' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Sabir, was originally employed as Intelligence Officer in B17, in ISI Directorate. He was transferred and posted as Section Officer (B-17) in the Interior Division vide Notification dated 14-9-1983. His case was placed before the D.P.C. In ISI Directorate in May, 1985, and December, 1986 and was deferred therefore, he was actually promoted in B-18 with effect from 7-71987. He was appointed by transfer as Section Officer in B-18 in the Office Management Group in the public interest, vide Notification dated 18-2-1989. He made representation for grant of seniority as Section Officer in B-18 in the OMG with effect from the date of his regular promotion from 22-7-1985 and failing to get relief departmentally, he filed Appeal No, 222(R) of 1989 before this Tribunal. The Tribunal by judgment dated 22-1-1991 dismissed the appeal with the observations that the appellant having been promoted to B-18 with effect from 7-7-1987, seniority as Section Officer in B-18 had rightly been assigned to him. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Civil Appeal No, 115 of 1991, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 29-4-1992 dismissed the appeal in the following terms: ... It is clear to us that the date of appellant's promotion to Grade-18 is 7-7-1987 and not 22-7-1985.
The opinion formulated by the Establishment Division in this respect, with which the Tribunal concurred, is not open to any valid criticism. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed."
' After this round of litigation, the appellant again took up the matter with ISI when in the year 1992 the Ministry of Defence made recommendations for grant of promotion with effect from 22-7-1985 in .(B-18) but the Establishment Division did not agree to grant ante-dated promotion. The appellant also filed Writ Petition No, 131 of 1994 in the Lahore High Court for issue of directions to the Establishment Division to pass final order on the recommendations of the D.P.C. Made in 1992. The Establishment Division in pursuance of the orders of the Lahore High Court passed on the Establishment Division vide O.M. Dated 7-12-1994 rejected the claim of the appellant for promotion to (B-18) with effect from 22-7-1985. He filed departmental appeal to the Prime Minister on 26-1- 1995, and failing to get any reply, he filed this appeal before the Tribunal with the prayer that he may be promoted to B-18 with effect from 22-7-1985 with all consequential benefits.
2. We have heard the appellant. It is argued that in 1985 and 1986, the case of the appellant for promotion to B-18 was deferred by the D.P.C. And finally he was promoted in 1987 but on his representation another D.P.C. Was held in 1992 and recommended the appellant for ante-dated promotion with effect from 22-7-1985 but the Establishment Division was bound to accept its recommendations, as such, he was entitled to ante-dated promotion from 22-7-1985.
3. Mr. Zakaullah Jan, S.O. Establishment Division argued that the appellant was permanently inducted into OMG with effect from 18-2-1989 and was no more an employee of ISI Directorate, therefore ISI Directorate was not competent to decide promotion cases of the persons who were not on their strength. He also raised the point that this matter was settled up to the level of the Supreme Court and therefore, the second appeal filed for the same cause of action is not competent under the principle of res judicata. He also raised the point of limitation that after the rejection of his claim vide O.M. Dated 7-12-1994, communicated to him on 3-1-1995, since it was final order on his appeal, he should have filed the appeal before Tribunal within 30 days of the communication of that order, and there was no occasion for filing appeal to the Prime Minister.
4. The above facts are not disputed. The appellant was permanently inducted into Office Management Group as Section Officer with effect from 18-2-1989 and had ceased to be an employee of the ISI Directorate. He filed Appeal No,222(R) of 1989 with the prayer that he may be granted seniority as Section Officer in B-18 with effect from 22-7-1985 but the same was dismissed.
He also went to the Supreme Court but his Civil Appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Tribunal was maintained. Therefore, as far as his prayer in this appeal is concerned, it stood finally decided on 29-4-1992 when his civil appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, it has rightly been argued by the departmental representative, that this appeal is not maintainable on the principle of res judicata and we are in agreement with his submission, and hold that this appeal is not maintainable. However, the appellant has advanced his case on the basis of the recommendations of the D.P.C. Held in ISI/Ministry of Defence in the year 1992 that the appellant be given ante-dated promotion in B-18 with effect from 22-7-1985, but the Establishment Division rightly did not agree to the proposal. We also fail to understand, how the ISI Directorate or the Ministry of Defence was competent to hold D.P.C. In 1992 for granting the appellant ante-dated promotion to a person who permanently absorbed in Office Management Group in 1989 with retrospective effect from 1985, when the appellant had ceased to be on their roll since his induction into Office Management Group, and this act of the Ministry of Defence was without jurisdiction, and the Establishment Division rightly disagreed with their recommendations, as the matters of promotions etc. Of officers of OMG, fell under the purview of the Establishment Division and not the Ministry of Defence or ISI Directorate.
5. The other objection raised by the Establishment Division has also substance. According to the appellant, he made representation dated 14-5-1992 for implementation of D.P.C. Recommendations, and for that matter, he invoked writ jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court by filing Writ Petition No,131 of 1994 for direction to issue final order on his representation with regard to recommendations of D.P.C. Made in 1992. In compliance, the Establishment Division re-examined the case of the appellant and the competent Authority had rejected his claim for promotion to B-18 with effect from 22-7-1985 vide O.M. Dated 7th December, 1994, and instead of coming to the Tribunal within thirty days of the said order, he made appeal to the Prime Minister on 26-1-1995 which remained unresponded, and rightly so, because under the rules there is one representation provided under section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, and no appeal is provided in matters of promotion. Therefore, this appeal having been filed on 18-5-1995 is hopelessly time-barred. There is no application for condonation of delay.
6. Upshot of the above discussions is that the appeal fails on the principle of res judicata; on the point of limitation and merits also, and is dismissed with costs.