' MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN (MEMBER).---Facts of the case are that the appellant appointed as Inspector (BPS-12) working under the respondents could not be considered by the concerned Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion as Superintendent (BPS-14) having been involved in some criminal cases, inter alia, and as such his juniors were promoted. Subsequently he was exonerated from the charge and his case duly processed, resulted in his promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee as Superintendent to BPS-14 by order dated 25-10-1997 "with immediate effect by assigning seniority with his batchmates promoted earlier". In other words he was promoted and also his original seniority restored to him as required under the Rules.
2. The matter did not end with his promotion and restoration of seniority to him but feeling aggrieved from the said promotion order he preferred a departmental appeal on 5-11-1997 and consequent upon its rejection on 22-12-1997 he filed the present appeal in this Tribunal on 15-1-1998 which is well within time.
3. In wake of the above background we have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Grievance of the appellant is that by the impugned order he has not been given full relief without antedation of his promotion (pro forma promotion) from the date his juniors were promoted and thus, he stood discriminated vis-a-vis his juniors with regard to pay and allowances and other consequential reliefs and back benefits.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant led us through the various case-laws available on the subject of pro form promotion and in view of the consistent view of the superior Courts the relief prayed for cannot be refused for the reason that the appellant was not at fault at any stage when his promotion case was deferred due to a case registered against him, secondly he was acquitted of the charge the case having proved false against him, inter alia, and thirdly he was, later on, restored to his original position i,e, promotion to BPS-14 as well as seniority but without making any statement/remarks about admissibility of back benefits etc.
6. It was stated in PLD 1973 Lahore 56 that the Government servants agitating claim for grant of seniority, same refused by the Government but subsequently the Government while revising its earlier decision allowed pro forma promotion, without arrears of pay, as a result of pro form promotion because they did not actually perform the duties of the post from the assumed date of promotion. In the background of this document it was held that "employees are entitled to full arrears of pay to which they were entitled and not merely to the arrears of pay only for the actual periods of duty performed by them".
7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in 1985 SCMR 1394, after approval of the ruling in 1973 SCMR 304, that "in a case of civil servant, who for no fault of his own is wrongly prevented from rendering service to the State in higher post to which he is admittedly entitled, should be given salary for higher post". This decision fully governs the case in hand and the appellant was entitled to the salary in spite of F.R.17.
8. There is still another authority contained in 1989 PLC (C.S.) 609 wherein in case of promotion of a civil servant, including seniority benefits, his "claim for monetary benefits of pay and allowances of higher grade from the date of promotion and fixation of pay was allowed even for the period of retrospective promotin".
9. Lastly but not least is 1993 PLC (C.S.) 1057 wherein, after discussion of F.Rs,17(1) and 26 regarding promotion and late determination of promotion, arrears of pay and other benefits were allowed to the civil servant who for no fault of his own was wrongly prevented from rendering services to the State in higher post to which he was admittedly entitled and whose seniority was subsequently restored. This latest authority applies on all fours to the facts of the instant case.
10. Gone are the days when pay and allowances were considered to be bounty of the State. It is an age of awareness wherein pay and allowances are claimed as of right under the statutory provisions. These are no longer paid as bounty of the State. Much water has gone under the bridge when such payment was considered as bounty of the State.
11. Pursuant to what has been stated above, this appeal is accepted with all consequential benefits as prayed for with no order as to costs.