Last Updated on December 7, 2016 by ShumailaKamal
The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench has given its decision in connection with the promotion w.e.f date of DPC instead of Date of vacant post or from the date an employee becomes eligible for promotion. Detail of the same is as under:
Brief Facts of the Appeal
The brief facts of this appeal are that the appellant joined the respondent department as KPO BPS-09 on 08-04-1984. He along with others in the appeals filed writ petition before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench for being treated as par with KPOs recruited in 2000 who were given BPS-10. Their writ petition succeeded before the honourable court and consequently the post was upgraded wef 26-06-2000 vide order dated 17-05-2007. The appellant was further promoted along with 7 other KPOs to the rank of Data Coder in BPS-12 on the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 20-08-2007. And the impugned order was passed on 24-08-2008. The appellant however felt aggrieved and filed departmental promotion to 2003 i.e when he had completed 3 years of qualifying service to become eligible for promotion to the next grade i.e BPS-12 in accordance with the recruitment rules.
We have however certain reservations. Firstly, there is no rule which makes it obligatory upon the respondents to fill vacant posts either from the date a vacancy has occurred or when employees become eligible for promotion. The contention that the appellant had fulfilled the eligibility criteria and therefore he should be promoted does not persuade us. Even otherwise DPCs are not held immediately on the occurrence of a vacancy nor has any rule been cited which makes it mandatory for the respondents to fill the posts from that day. Such meetings are generally convened at regular intervals and the recommendations take effect from the date the minutes are approved by the competent authority and not from the date when the vacancy had occurred. It is not denied that the posts had remained vacant at all during the pendency of the writ petition. There would be substance in the argument if the respondents had made promotion of the other officials in the meantime. Therefore under these circumstances, we find that the respondents have not committed any illegality by promoting the appellant with immediate effect.
For the reasons discussed hereinabove we don’t find much force in the appeal and consequently it is dismissed as being devoid of merit. This post has been delivered by Mr. Zafar Ali.