1998 P L C (C.S.

) 579
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Karim, JJ
AHMAD NAWAZ SHAH, SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
Versus
CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and others
Civil Petition No. 545 of 1995, decided on 26th March. 1996.
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 24-7-1995 passed in Appeal
No. 207(R) of 1995).
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---
----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)---Promotion--Eligibility for promotion
with effect from 15-3-1979---Actual promotion on 29-12-1994---Civil servant's claim to be
entitled to promotion in 1991 in accordance with S.R.O. dated 15-3-1979 was rejected by
Departmental Authority as also by Service Tribunal---Validity---Civil servant claimed that
having become eligible for promotion in accordance with S.R.O. dated 15-3-1979 he was
entitled to be given ante-dated promotion from the date he was recommended and became
eligible for promotion, that promotion of various other persons in pursuance of subsequent
instructions issued by Authority was wholly without jurisdiction for no S.R.O. was issued on
basis of instructions issued by Authority which could amend S.R.O. dated 15-3-1979---
Contention raised by civil servant required consideration--Leave to appeal to Supreme Court
was granted in circumstances.
Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-
Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th March, 1996.
ORDER
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the
judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 24-7-1995 whereby service appeal filed by the
petitioner was dismissed '
The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. (B-5) on 9-4-
1977 in the Directorate-General Intelligence and Investigation Customs and Excise). The
petitioner was promoted step -by step and was finally promoted as Office Superintendent (B-
13) on 5-8-1985. He was considered for promotion as Deputy Superintendent (B-14) by the
Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) in its meeting held on 19/20-5-1990 alongwith
other persons working in the Office of Directorate General. Four Office Superintendents
whose names were above the petitioner in the recommendations of the D.P.C. were promoted
as Deputy Superintendent (B-l4) but petitioner's case could not be finalised. At this stage it
may be mentioned here that under the Notification dated 26-6-1974 the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs was to be filled 100 per cent by
promotion from amongst the Inspectors of Central Excise and Land Customs having at least
five years continuous service in the grade of inspectors. This notification was amended on
15-3-1979 vide S.R.O.249(I)/79 which provided that henceforth only 95 percent of the total
vacancies of Deputy Superintendents of Central Excise and Land Customs will be filled in by
promotion of Inspectors of Central Excise and Land Customs while 5 per cent of the
vacancies of Deputy Superintendents, Central Excise and Land Customs were reserved for
promotes from amongst Stenographers, Steno-typists, Office Superintendents and Head
Clerks. However, the condition of eligibility provided that from amongst this category of
candidates eligible seniors were to be first promoted. It is contended by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner had preferential right for promotion to the post of Deputy
Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs in this category as the post of Office
Superintendent was in B-13 while rest of the persons eligible under this category were
serving in lower grades. However, while the petitioner's case for promotion was under
consideration in accordance with the terms of S.R.O. No.249(I)/79, dated 15-3-1979, the
Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) sent a telex which provided that the cases of Steno typists
who were enjoying Selection Grade in B-14 may be reconsidered in the D.P.C. in the basis of
their seniority i.e dates of their appointments and if the Steno typists are senior according to
date of joining, the office superintendent who are in B-13 shall be treated as junior. This was
followed by another telex from the C.B.R, which provided that Statistical
Assistants/Assistants may also be considered in the category of persons eligible for
promotion under 5 per cent. quota, and therefore, the cases of Statistical Assistants and
Assistants may also be considered by the D.P.C. alongwith other ministerial staff. The C.B.R.
further issued guideline for utilization of 5 per cent. quota reserved for the promotion of
Deputy Superintendent by letter dated 2-11-1992 as follows"
"(a) Office
Superintendents
(B-13)
(b) Stenotypists (B-12)
and Steno typists,
selection Grade
(B-14)
(c) Statistical Assistants (B-11)
(d) Assistants (B-11)
This guideline was further revised by the C.B.R. through letter-dated 9-2-1993, which laid
down the categories of persons who were eligible for promotion under 5 per cent quota, as
follows
(a)

Office Superintendents (B-13)
(b) Steno typists (B-12)
(c) Steno typists (Selection
Grade)
(B-13)
(d) Statistical
Assistants/Assistants.
(B-11)
This was followed by another letter from C.B.R. dated 19-7-1993 ill which it was stated that
out of total strength of 597 Deputy Superintendents, 30 seats of 5 per cent. quota be filled in
the following manner:--
Stenotypists

16
Office Superintendents 12
Assistants/Statistical
Assistants
2
As a result of these instructions issued by the C.B.R. several persons who were working as
Stenographers, Statistical Assistants and Assistants and were junior to the petitioner were
promoted. The petitioner, accordingly, challenged promotion of persons who were working
as Stenographers, Statistical Assistants/Assistants before the Service Tribunal. Some other
persons who were also serving as Office Superintendents challenged promotion of Statistical
Assistants and stenotypists. These appeals were heard by the Tribunal on 16-10-1994 and on
the basis of statement of Second Secretary, C.B.R. that the cases of all the persons are being
processed and will be disposed of within a fortnight, the appeals were disposed of by the
Tribunal leaving it open to the petitioner and others that if they were dissatisfied with the
order of departmental authority to approach th8 Tribunal again. The petitioner was,
accordingly, promoted on 29-12-1994 as Deputy Superintendent. The petitioner, however',
claimed that he was entitled to promotion in 1990 in accordance with the recommendations
of D.P.C., and therefore, he should be given promotion from the back date. As the petitioner
was unable to get any redress he filed a departmental appeal in which he claimed his
promotion from 1991 in accordance with S.R.0.249(i)/79, dated 15-3-1979 and challenged
the validity of subsequent instructions and letters issued by the C.B.R. making eligible
persons who were not mentioned in S.R.O. 249(1)/79, eligible for promotion as Deputy
Superintendent. As the departmental appeal was not disposed of within 90 days, the
petitioner approached the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
Mr. Shah Abdur Rashid, the learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking leave to appeal
contended that the petitioner having become eligible for promotion in accordance with
S.R.O. No.249 (I)/79, dated 15-3-1979 he was entitled to be given anti-dated promotion from
the date he was recommended and became eligible for the appointment as Deputy
Superintendent. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the promotion of various
other persons in pursuance of subsequent instructions issued by the C.B.R. was wholly
without jurisdiction as no S.R.O. was issued on the basis of instructions issued by the C.B.R.
which could amend S.R.O. 240(1)/97, dated 15-3-1979. The contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner raises legal question of general importance and we, accordingly
grant leave to appeal.
A . A. /A-41 /S Leave granted