O R D E R S H E E T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Const. Petition No. D- 419 of 2011

Date	Order with signature of the Judge

1. For orders on office objection flag ‘A’

2. For Katcha Peshi

01.12.2011

Mr. Abdul Hussain Ali Hassan Junejo, advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Addl. A.G a/w Syed Fida Hussain Shah, State Counsel.

------------

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner joined as Tax Munshi in 1979 and was promoted as Junior Clerk vide order dated 01.7.1987. It is further claimed in the petition that the petitioner was vide order dated 20.6.2005 promoted by the Zila Nazim from the position of Senior Clerk BS-7 to the position of Assistant in BS-11. This constitution petition has been filed claiming that petitioner be paid and remunerated in accordance with the promotion granted to him and it is prayed that the promotion order be implemented and salary and allowances be paid accordingly.

In the comments submitted by the department, it is stated that in the record of the department there is no record available whatsoever regarding promotion of the petitioner. It was further stated that no departmental promotion committee meeting was held for promoting petitioner and therefore, promotion of the petitioner is non est. learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated contents of the petition.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have gone through the record. It is claimed by the petitioner in the petition that he was promoted vide order dated 20.6.2005 but surprisingly with the petition itself the petitioner has enclosed a copy of minutes of a meeting where in February, 2006 it was suggested that the petitioner be promoted as Assistant against the vacancy likely to be created due to promotion of one of the Assistants. On this, the Zila Nazim was requested to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee. Moreover, letter dated 08.3.2007 has also been filed by the petitioner where the Administrative Officer wrote a letter to the EDO (F&P), Larkana requesting him to go through the documents for promotion of the petitioner and guide/give complete report. All this indicates that the petitioner had never been lawfully promoted. Moreover, though the promotion is claimed to have taken place in 2005 this petition was filed in March 2010. Therefore, for both the reasons i.e. the petitioner has failed to establish that he was lawfully promoted and for the reason that petition has been filed after delay of five years, this constitution petition is dismissed.

Judge