KARACHI: Govt told to consider promotion of police official
By Our Staff Reporter
KARACHI, Feb 1: The Federal Services Tribunal has directed the federal authorities to consider the promotion of a Grade-19 officer of the Police Services of Pakistan (PSP), who challenged the promotion of his five juniors to the post of deputy inspector general of police (DIG).
The direction to this effect was issued here by an FST bench, comprising Qazi Mohammad Hussain Siddiqui and Rashid Ali Mirza, in its judgment on Jan 25 on the appeal of Saleem Akhtar Siddiqui, a PSP officer on officer on special duty (OSD) with the provincial service and general administration department (S&GAD).
The PSP officer had made the secretary of establishment, chairman, Federal Service Commission/chairman, Central Selection Board, Mohammad Rafique Hasan, DIG Special Branch Punjab Ch Sajjad Ahmad, DIG Special Branch (Security) Punjab Mohammad Akbar, DIG Investigation Zone-2, Tasadduque Hussain, DIG investigation, Lahore, and Abdul Khaliq, DIG Mirpur (Azad Jammu and Kashmir), as respondent.
Mr Siddiqui challenged the promotion of the police officers who were junior to him. He submitted that he had joined the PSP in batch known as “Sixth Common”, while the five police officers, made respondents, joined the PSP in the junior batch, known as “Seventh Common”.
The appellant submitted that the secretary of the Establishment maintained a seniority list in unified grades of Police Services of Pakistan. He stated that the secretary prepared a seniority list on February 28, 1993 as required by Rule 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
He stated that his name appeared at serial No 46 and the names of respondents appeared at 56, 58, 59, 61, 62 and 63 in the seniority list. He said that the junior officers superseded him and they were promoted in Grade-20.
He contended that the notifications of the junior police officers were issued by the secretary of the Establishment in violation of rules, law and procedure.
The secretary of establishment in his comments stated that the performance of the appellant did not meet the criteria of excellence and requisite merit. The other police officers also filed their comments wherein they justified their promotion.
The counsel for the appellant contended that his client was never warned or advised to improve his performance during his 27-year service with the police department.
He argued that the appellant was officiated in post of BS-20 and he could not now be considered unfit for promotion. He relied on Rule 6 (d) of Esta Code contending that “moveover shall be allowed in cases where an employee, who is otherwise considered fit for promotion to higher post but cannot be promoted for want of vacancy”.
The bench in its judgment observed: “The appellant did fulfil all the requirements for promotion to BS-20 as given in clause IV of Promotion Policy. Section 9 of Civil Servants Act, 1973 provides that ‘a civil servant possessing such minimum qualification as may be prescribed shall be eligible for promotion to a higher post for the time being served under the rules for departmental promotion in the service or cadre to which he belongs’. As per Promotion Policy the requirement is to score 70 per cent marks but the appellant had scored more than 70 per cent, thus he was entitled to promotion in BPS-20”.
The judgment concluded: “Applying the dictum of the apex court to the facts of the appellant for his promotion to BS-20, we are of the view that fair and just treatment has not been meted out to the appellant. However, the prayer of the appellant for setting aside the promotion order of the Respondents 3 to 8 and awarding promotion to the appellant with retrospective effect cannot be considered in view of the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court as it is beyond out jurisdiction, but we direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant in the next DPC as stated in their comments that they will consider the case of the appellant for promotion. He will also be entitled to original seniority”.
