LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that a civil servant has a fundamental right to be promoted even after his retirement through awarding pro forma promotion.

Justice Jawad Hassan explained that promotion is, no doubt, not the vested right of a civil servant, but where he is fully qualified for promotion and there is no tangible clog in his service record, he has a right to expect that his case will be considered for promotion in accordance with the law.

“Any breach or deviation there for mala fide reasons or due to arbitrary act of his superiors or peer or the competent authority, is not warranted in law,” he adds, allowing a petition by a retired officer of the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) against denial of timescale promotion during service.

Arshad Ali, the petitioner, retired from service as a superintendent engineer (BPS-19) in 2015.

Petitioner wasn’t given benefit of timescale promotion despite fixation of eligibility criteria

He said he was not given the benefit of timescale promotion in terms of an office memorandum issued on March 5, 2013 despite fixation of eligibility criteria by the authorities.

Petitioner’s counsel Syed Moazzam Ali Shah argued that the petitioner was entitled to be upgraded within 30 days of the promotion board’s meeting, which had to be held twice a year.

However, he said, no meeting was convened till the retirement of the petitioner. He pointed out that the memorandum clearly spoke about its application to officers who were in service on Feb 15, 2013 or might have retired thereafter.

Wapda opposed the petition, saying the timescale promotion was to be granted from its date of decision of board and not from any earlier date. It said that when the petitioner moved his application for promotion, he was told in writing that there was no provision in relevant rules for grant of the required relief after retirement.

Assisting the court, Advocate Awais Khalid and Barrister Lamia Niazi, the amicus curiae, submitted that the word “shall” had been used in the notification of Wapda for holding two meetings a year as prescribed and required by the notification. They said this mandatory provision had not been complied with, rather violated and flouted by the respondent -- Wapda.

They explained that the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 entailed penal consequences.

In his verdict, Justice Hassan observed that the petitioner was eligible and qualified to be considered for grant of timescale promotion in 2014 and he could not be penalised for departmental lapses and negligence on their part regarding non-convening of promotion board meeting till retirement of the petitioner.

He remarked that the petitioner could not be made to suffer on account of inaction, omission or negligence on the part of the respondent department in the late convening of the meeting contrary to the directives of promotion policy.

The judge allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order regarding rejection of the petitioner’s application. The judge also remanded the matter to Wapda to reconsider the plea of the petitioner as per law.

Published in Dawn, August 22nd, 2020