Supreme Court Orders Backdated Promotion of Civil Servant from the Date When Seat Was Available

You are currently viewing Supreme Court Orders Backdated Promotion of Civil Servant from the Date When Seat Was Available

Bench: Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Case: Asad Hussain v. Controller General of Accounts & Another (CPLA No. 2258 of 2023)

c.p._2258_2023Download

In a landmark service law judgment, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has directed backdated promotion of a civil servant after finding that his rightful elevation was arbitrarily withheld due to administrative lapses and misuse of discretion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

The petitioner, Asad Hussain, was serving as an Assistant Private Secretary (BS-16) and performing duties on current charge of Private Secretary (BS-17) since 2015. Despite being the senior-most eligible officer, his promotion was repeatedly deferred. He was finally promoted in 2018, but challenged the delay, seeking promotion from the original vacancy date of 06.08.2015.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • He was the top seniority candidate and eligible when the vacancy arose in 2015.
  • His promotion was unlawfully delayed on pretexts of “deficiencies” in his Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs).
  • His PERs contained no adverse remarks, and routine observations on discipline could not legally bar promotion.
  • Multiple deferrals without giving him a chance to respond violated natural justice.

Respondents’ Position

  • The government argued that promotion was not automatic and could only follow DPC recommendations.
  • His PERs had shortcomings, which delayed consideration.
  • Once rectified, he was duly promoted in 2018 in accordance with rules.

Supreme Court’s Findings

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, writing for the bench, held:

  1. No Adverse PERs: The petitioner’s PERs for 2014–2016 contained no adverse material to lawfully justify withholding promotion.
  2. Procedural Irregularities: Reports were not even recorded by the competent authority, raising questions of validity.
  3. Discretion Misused: DPC exercised unguided discretion, violating principles of fairness and equality under Articles 4 & 25 of the Constitution.
  4. Rightful Expectation: A civil servant’s promotion must be considered from the date the vacancy arises if he meets eligibility.
  5. Administrative Neglect: Systemic inefficiencies cannot deprive an officer of his service rights.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court set aside the Federal Service Tribunal’s judgment of 31.03.2023.
  • Directed that the petitioner be promoted to BS-17 with effect from 06.08.2015, the date of the original vacancy.
  • Ordered that all consequential benefits — seniority, arrears of pay, and service entitlements — follow from the backdated promotion.
  • Respondents directed to issue a revised notification within 30 days and submit compliance.

Key Legal Takeaways

  • Vacant posts must be filled promptly; delays weaken institutional efficiency.
  • Non-adverse remarks in PERs cannot be misused to block promotions.
  • Discretion in promotions must be exercised fairly, guided by rules, not arbitrarily.
  • Courts will protect civil servants against administrative injustice and discrimination.

Tags: , , , , ,