1. ' ABDUL RASHEED MEMON (MEMBER-II).---The appellant came before the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievances with regard to his promotion from BPS.18 to BPS.19 with the following facts: ' That the appellant was appointed as Medical Officer in BPS.17 on ad hoc basis in the year 1978 and was working as Medical Officer when the posts were advertised in the year 1985, wherein he competed and was selected on regular basis and the Notification for his regular appointment was issued on 7-6-1986. He was assigned the position at Serial No,290 in order of merit. Thus, he was regularized on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the first appointment order, dated 1- 11-1978. He was promoted from BPS.17 to BPS.18 in the year 1995 and also by way of move-over to BPS.19 in the year 1997 with effect from 1-12-1994 vide Notification, dated 22-3-1997. It was during the year 1996 when doctors of the same selection/batch were promoted from BPS.18 to BPS.19 vide Notification, dated 29-6-1996 excluding the appellant although by that time he was eligible for promotion to BPS.19 having already moved-over to prescribed scale. Further he alleged that some of the junior doctors by way of length of service were also promoted depriving the appellant from his due right. That he came to know of the Notification of 1996 on 2-3-1999 when the appellant approached the office of respondent No,3 where he was informed orally that his ACRs from the period 1979 to 1998 were not available on the record which resulted in his non- promotion/deficiency of his case before the D.P.C. It was surprising for him because he had already been given, move-over on 22-3-1997 which fact alone certified and confirmed that the appellant's ACRs were complete and there was nothing lagging behind. He further contends that more than 100 posts were lying vacant on 19-6-1996 but the respondent No 2 promoted 43 Senior Medical Officers from BPS-18 to BPS-19 on acting charge basis and 306 on regular basis vide Notification of saute date. That according to Rules/Policy the acting charge promotion is allowed only when there is a deficiency in the length of service, but the appellant who had more than 18 years' service and was eligible for promotion was not considered due to misrepresentation of facts about the alleged reasons of his ACRs being not available. That the appellant filed various representations in respect of his eligibility and length of service for his promotion alongwith his batchmates on regular basis, as those officers who had not even completed the required length of service had been promoted to BPS-19. But there has been no response. Whereupon the appellant filed his review petition, dated 4-3-1999 with the respondent No,2 but no action was taken, despite the lapse of mandatory period of 90 days. He, thus, came before the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievances by which he wants that he should also be considered for promotion alongwith his batchmates, as his representation has also not been considered for the reasons not known to the appellant. He has further stated in appeal that the promotees of BPS.19 are up to Serial No,289 whereas his number is 290 and as his record being complete in all respects he should have been considered for promotion in the D.P.C.
2. Meeting held in the year 1996. He has supported his claim with various notifications placed on the record of this Tribunal. He has also placed on record the Notification of the postings, adjustments and the rules which justified his contention that depriving him from promotion for a long period of three years on the basis of his ACRs being not available, while during the said period he had been allowed move-over which could not have been possible, appears to be not plausible. He contended that his ACRs are on the record of the department and his feeling was that he has been deliberately excluded from the list of promotee officers due to some departmental intrigues and that he should have been considered and allowed the promotion from that date as he was eligible and the post was also available at that time.
3. ' He has prayed the Tribunal to direct the respondent No,2 to place the case of appellant before DPC/PSB for his promotion on regular basis from due date i,e, 26-5-1996. That to compute the service of the appellant from the date of his original appointment viz. 18-11-1978 till his regularization by the competent Authority and any other relief Tribunal considers appropriate.
4. ' The respondent No,3 i.e, Secretary to Government of Sindh, Health Department has not denied the contents about service particulars of the appellant and has reiterated the same facts. However, they have stated in the said statement that not a single doctor, junior to Dr. Rafique Kalachi, the appellant, has been promoted to BPS.19, All promotions were considered on seniority-cum-fitness basis and since the appellant was junior in seniority, therefore, his name was not considered for promotion. They have placed the record and relevant facts and the Notifications issued in this respect. They have also denied the averments that he was not considered due to non-availability of his ACRs, In fact, he was allowed move-over from BPS.18 to BPS.19 for which only 5 years' ACRs were required which were available. However, his entire ACR record was required for his promotion from BPS.18 to BPS.19, which was deficient as was duly pointed out to him. They have also stated in their written statement that he will be considered in the next meeting of PSB as from present doctors promoted to BPS.18 in 1994 are going to be considered for promotion from BPS.18 to BPS.19.
5. ' The A.A.-G. While contesting the appeal stated that facts as narrated by the appellant and department are same. He is also eligible to get the benefit of entire length of his service, but as no junior officer has been considered for promotion there is no case of the appellant and that he will be considered for promotion in the next PSB meeting as and when held.
6. ' In this case although the facts as alleged by the appellant and contested by the respondents are same but the most essential part of the proceedings has been that despite availability of sufficient number of posts, the appellant being eligible for promotion from BPS.18 to BPS.19, was not considered for no fault of his. This fact has also not been denied by the department. They have also stated that he will be considered alongwith his remaining batchmates in the next PSB meeting.
7. However, we feel that depriving a Senior Officer from one of his promotions while posts are also available, specially when he has completed the length of service also has been unnecessarily retained in the lower scale for no fault of his This creates discrimination and affects the working of Senior Officers, which feel aggrieved at the hands of the departmental authorities. However, as no junior in seniority of the appellant has been promoted, but still three years have passed but no relief has been accorded to the appellant, during this period, despite his representations and petitions. We are also surprised to find out that no PSB meeting has been held during this period of three years. Thus, depriving the appellant of his due right/promotion to the higher scale upon completion of the required length of service.
8. ' We, therefore, remand this case back to the department with the directives to promote the appellant within three months as per the rules and to effect the same from the date his immediate senior was promoted, provided the relevant vacancies were available on the date, so as to redress his grievance and for the undue delay made in this respect.' With the above observations the appeal is disposed of with no order as to cost. Given under our hands and the Seal of the Tribunal this 3rd day of March, 2000 at Karachi.