DECISION Respondent Irshad Hussain was a senior Chargeman in the Railways. Due to certain grievances he got frustrated and asked for L.P.R. And early retirement from service. He was, therefore, prematurely retired by the appellant Railway. The respondent then realised this mistake and filed petition against his premature retirement as ordered by the Railway. The matter went up to Supreme Court.
Meanwhile the respondent had received his gratuity and pensionary benefits as a consequence of his retirement. The Supreme Court in their order, dated 20th November, 1991 held that the respondent be treated as being in service up to 2-5-1987 and then to be on L.P.R. From 3-5-1987 to 2-5-1988 proceeding his retirement from 3-5-1988. He should thereafter, be treated as re- employed from 4-4-1989 to 30-4-1990 and paid for that period according to Re-employment Rules.
2. Being dissatisfied with the consequential order of the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways dated 29-11-1992 the respondent filed a petition before the Labour Court No. V, Karachi. In this order the premature retirement orders passed by the Railway were cancelled and the respondent was allowed to rejoin his service. The period of his L.P.R. Was converted into leave due and the period from 4-4-1989 to 24-9-1990 was to be considered as duty. The grievance of the respondent in his petition before the Labour Court was that since his juniors had meanwhile been promoted as Assistant Foremen his duty should also be counted retrospectively as that of Assistant Foreman as from re-employment to the present day. He is still working and is to retire after about six months.
3. Mr. M. Latif Saghar for the Railways objects to this claim which was allowed by the Labour Court that the respondent be treated as on promotion retrospectively and paid his legal dues for the period of re--employment on the basis of that promotion.
4. The privilege of promotion cannot be claimed as of right on the basis of seniority alone. The respondent could be allowed his due seniority but having been re-employed under orders of the Supreme Court and his absence having been treated as duty he cannot claim that the entire period may be regarded as duty as Assistant Foreman and not a Senior Charge-man. It is a principle of law that a person cannot be promoted on re-employment nor can he be promoted with retrospective effect when he was actually not working. The claim of the respondent is, therefore, fantastic. He should be satisfied with his re-employment on the original post and with his absence having been regarded as duty but under no law can he be promoted from the date when he was not working and paid his dues as Assistant Foreman.
5. The appeal of Pakistan Railways is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Labour Court is modified to that extent. The back benefits deposited by the appellant may be refunded after a period of thirty days.
Order accordingly.