ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-700 of 2012

_____________________________________________________________

Order with signature of Judge

1.For katcha peshi.

2.For hearing of CMA No.42432/12

30.04.2014

Mr.Abdul Salam Memon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Abdul Jalil Zubedi, AAG

Ms.Saeeda Rasheed, Chief SAZDA, Planning & Development Department and Syed Anwar Ali Abidi, Section Officer (Legal), Planning and Development Department.

              ---

The petitioner has filed this petition in the month of February, 2012 with the prayer that the respondent be directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Chief (BPS-18) in view of the recommendations made by the departmental promotion committee in its meeting held on 28.4.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out page-51 (Annexure-M) which are the minutes of the meeting of D.P.C. held on 28.4.2009 for the promotion of Planning Officers (BPS-17) to the post of Assistant Chief  (BPS-18) Planning & Development Department. It transpired from the minutes of the meeting that out of four persons the D.P.C. recommended the case of the petitioner and one Khair Muhammad Buriro for the promotion. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed the comments in which it is admitted that the D.P.C. cleared the name of petitioner for promotion as Assistant Chief (BS-18), but not strongly recommended. We failed to understand the phrase “strongly recommended” as neither the word is used in civil servant laws nor this would be a reason for declining the promotion. The recommendations made by the D.P.C. is a serious business, once the D.P.C. cleared the name of any person for promotion it means that they have thoroughly considered  the case of the incumbent and after considering all pros and cons his case is recommended for promotion.

During pendency of this petition the petitioner was promoted on the basis of same recommendations of the D.P.C. The notification was issued on 8.5.2013 with immediate effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this should have been issued with effect from the date when the D.P.C. cleared the petitioner for promotion but it has been issued with prospective effect.

Learned AAG argued that after the promotion grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and he is already enjoying the benefits of grade 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG both are agreed the disposal of this petition on the premise that the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed, however, for the change of date of notification with retrospective effect the petitioner will file representation/departmental appeal to the competent authority and if any appeal or representation is filed the same shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of three months. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

JUDGE