' Muhammad Akram, has brought the present appeal whereby he has challenged orders dated 4- 8-1999 by Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi, and subsequent orders dated 5-12-1997, 11-3-1999 and 4-8-1999 whereby he was refused admission to List 'F' w,e,f, 1- 1-1984, pro forma promotion as Officiating Inspector w,e,f, 9-4-1981 and prayed for a direction to be given to respondent No,1 to consider the case of the appellant for promotion as D.S.P. From the date respondent No,2 was promoted.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant was directly recruited as Sub- Inspector in Pakistan Rangers on 13-10-1965 and on the dissolution of One Unit, he was transferred from Baluchistan Police and repatriated to Punjab Police in 1972 where after he was confirmed as Sub. Inspector in Rawalpindi Range w,e,f, 31-3-1978 and admitted to List 'F' on 1-10-1999 and promoted as Inspector on 7-10-1990. Grievance of the appellant is his claim to promotion as Inspector w,e,f, 1-1-1981, the date on which his batch mates and juniors were promoted. His representation dated 28-11-1990 for ante dating his promotion and admission to List 'F' was rejected by Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, on 4-8-1993 on the ground that he had earned two minor penalties.
3. Learned counsel drew my attention to para. 6 of the reply submitted by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, which is reproduced as under:- "The appellant joined as Sepoy in Pakistan Rangers alongwith Dildar Ali, Asad Ullah Khan and Muhammad Tufail (now DSPs) one after the other in the month of October, November and December, 1965. Again their date of appointment as S.I. In Pakistan Rangers in the same (12-11- 1965) whereas D.S.P. Dildar Ali and Muhammad Tufail were appointed as S.Is. On 12-2-1966 respectively. Similarly, the date of absorption of the petitioner in Striking Force Kalat, is the same as that of all the three DSPs i,e, 20-7-1966. The appellant alongwith Asad Ullah Khan and Muhammad Tufail DSPs reported their arrival in Punjab Police on 15-9-1972 whereas DSP Dildar Ali joined Punjab Police on 31-12-1982, three and half months after the petitioner and DSP Asad Ullah and Muhammad Tufail. Thereafter, all of them went to F.S.F. On deputation on one and the same date i,e, 1-1-1973 and transferred back to Rawalpindi Range on 25-9-73 (Asad Ullah Khan and Muhammad Tufail) and 29-9-1973 (Dildar Ali) and 30-9-1973, petitioner. However, all of them passed the Inter Class Course in the term ending 31-3-1975. Thereafter, they qualified the Upper Class Course in March, 1978. The date of confirmation as S.I. Of Dildar Ali, DSP, Asad Ullah and the appellant is one and the same which was, however, ante dated as 12-10-1965, 31-3-1978, and 12-2- 1966, respectively. However, the ante dated confirmation as S.Is. Of the appellant and DSP Dildar Ali are being withdrawn by the competent Authority as it was given by misapplication of rules.
Subsequently, the date of admission to list 'F' of Dildar Ali, Asad Ullah and Muhammad Tufail DSPs was ante dated by CPO as 1-1-1981 while the date of admission to list 'F' of petitioner Inspector Muhammad Akram remained the same as 1-10-1990. All the three DSPs were promoted as Officiating Inspector from 9-4-1981 while the date of promotion of the appellant is 7-10:1990. The date of promotion as Inspector of DSP Dildar Ali was further ante dated as 23-1-1974 on the basis of judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. Although the petitioner has a good case for bringing him at par with all the three DSPs coming together from the Rangers and joining the Punjab Police on 15-9-1972, yet the adverse entires pertain to 1982 which are still intact and all these punishments have not been set aside in appeal by the next competent Authority so far. Similarly, his earlier representation for seniority/ante dating admission to list 'F' has already been considered and rejected by the Additional. I.-G. Police vide order dated 4-8-1993. In this situation, when there is no improvement in the service record, he has no case for ante dated seniority."
4. Argument as it emerges from the reply submitted by respondent No,1 in para. 6 of his comments is that appellant earned two adverse entries for the years 1991 and 1992 which are the main hurdles in his way to secure his promotion claimed in the appeal. To be in line with the reasoning given in the ensuing paragraphs, promotion is being claimed as Inspector w,e,f, 9-4-81 and admission to list 'F' w,e,f, 1-1-1981. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn my attention to Police Circular letter dated 7-11-1984 where the following policy was laid down:-- "A question has arisen whether while considering a Government servant for pro forma promotion assessm ent of his fitness for promotion should be determined on the basis of his A.C.Rs, upto the date from which pro forma promotion is proposed to be allowed or total record upto the date of consideration of the case should be examined.
' The matter has been examined and it has been decided that in order to be fair only such record should be considered as would have been available upto the date of pro forma promotion because in such case that fact which needs determination is whether the employee was fit for promotion on the given previous date. Subsequent record should not prejudice such assessment.
The question of any anomalies arising out of this should not rather cannot arise because first of all the concerned. Government servant has to be promoted with immediate effect on the basis of total record. If he is not so promoted, the question of pro forma promotion would not arise."
5. While interpreting this policy letter, Hon'ble Lahore High Court, in the case of Ch. Yar Muhammad Durraiana v. Government of the Punjab and another reported in 1992 PLC (C.S.) 95, held as under:- "It is, therefore, clear that petitioner was entitled to be considered for pro forma promotion and his case for promotion was wrongly and illegally deferred on 17-2-1982 and the service record of the petitioner only upto the date was required to be considered and the subsequent events cannot furnish basis for turning down his claim for pro forma promotion.
' The pro forma promotion, as is clear from the policy letter of the Government, is granted to the civil servants, who were ignored for promotion on account of pendency of some enquiry, adverse remarks etc. Which are to be operative later on. The net result is that it is presumed as if these adverse remarks, enquiry etc. Were nonexistent and the national promotion was to be granted to the civil servant from due date."
6. The end result was that the appeal was accepted and the impugned orders were declared without lawful authority and the appropriate pro forma Promotion Committee/Provincial Selection'
Board were directed to consider to grant of pro forma promotion to the appellant in that case. The said rule of law was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain Sarfaraz Ahmad Mufti v. Government of Punjab and others (1991 SCMR 1637):
7. Under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, this Tribunal is bound under Article 189 to following the dictum of the Supreme Court. 1, therefore, hold that the order dated 4-8-1993, 5-12-1997, 1 I -3-1999 and 4-8-1999 passed by the respondents from time to time denying relief to the appellant are illegal and resultantly set aside. Respondent No, I shall now convene, without further loss of time, D.P.C./Pro forma Promotion Committee to consider the grant of pro forma promotion to the appellant in accordance with law from the dates claimed by him.