| Case ID |
ffaeb18e-f548-4614-803d-34d09e3805f0 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeals Nos.446 to 454 of 2021 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 28, 2022 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 17, 2021 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled on various aspects of promotions and seniority within the civil service, emphasizing that acting charge appointments do not equate to regular promotions. The court clarified that eligibility for promotion is distinct from fitness, which is determined by a civil servant's service record, integrity, and proficiency. The judgment also highlighted that ad hoc appointments do not confer seniority benefits and that seniority is effective only from regular appointments. The court upheld previous judgments regarding the seniority of judicial officers and mandated that promotions must follow established rules and regulations, ensuring fairness and transparency in the process. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the promotion and seniority issues faced by civil servants in Pakistan. The Supreme Court addressed the complexities of acting charge appointments, distinguishing them from regular promotions. It emphasized the importance of fitness over mere eligibility for promotions and clarified that previous ad hoc services do not count towards seniority. The ruling reinforced the need for adherence to established laws governing civil service promotions, ensuring that all civil servants are treated fairly and justly. This case reflects ongoing challenges in the civil service regarding promotions, seniority, and the interpretation of laws, highlighting the necessity for clarity and consistency in administrative decisions. Keywords: civil service, promotion, seniority, Supreme Court of Pakistan, acting charge, ad hoc appointments, eligibility, fitness, judicial officers. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Gulzar Ahmed, C.J.,
Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice,
Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Malik, Advocate Supreme Court,
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record,
Shams ud Din, Advocate Supreme Court,
Muhammad Rauf Atta, Advocate Supreme Court,
Rashid Mehmood, Registrar High Court Balochistan,
Arshad Mehmood, Additional Registrar High Court Balochistan,
Gul Hassan Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court,
Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court
|
| Petitioners |
Abdul Qayyum,
Shuja-ud-Din,
Bashir Ahmed Badini
|
| Respondents |
Hon'ble Chairman and Member of Administration Committee and Promotion Committee of Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan
|
| Citations |
2022 SLD 550,
2022 SCMR 448
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Anis and others v. Abdul Haseeb and others PLD 1994 SC 539,
Muhammad Rahim Khan v. The Chief Secretary, N.W.F.P. and 4 others 1999 SCMR 1605,
Director-General Intelligence Bureau, Islamabad and others v. Amir Mujahid Khan and others 2011 SCMR 389,
Fasihuddin Siddiqui's case 1998 SCMR 637,
Muhammad Yousaf's case 1996 SCMR 1297,
Rustam Khan's case 1994 SCMR 1957,
Muhammad Zakir Khan's case 2004 SCMR 497,
Jehangir Mirza's case PLD 1990 SC 1013,
Wajahat Hussain's case PLD 1991 SC 82,
Sh. Anwar Hussain's case 1985 SCMR 1201,
Nazeer Ahmed's case 2001 SCMR 352 = 2001 PLC (C.S.) 394
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973
|
| Sections |
8-B,
19
|