Right to Be Considered for Promotion Accrues on Date of Vacancy – Supreme Court of Pakistan.
 |
ترقی کے لیے غور کا حق آسامی خالی ہونے کی تاریخ سے پیدا ہوتا ہےPLD 2026 Supreme Court 64 بینچ: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah اور Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi تمہیدسپریم کورٹ نے اس اہم مقدمہ میں قرار دیا کہ سرکاری ملازم کو ترقی کے لیے غور کیے جانے کا حق اس وقت پیدا ہو جاتا ہے جب متعلقہ آسامی خالی ہو، بشرطیکہ وہ اہلیت کے معیار پر پورا اترتا ہو۔ محکمانہ تاخیر یا اندرونی غلطیوں کو جواز بنا کر اہل افسران کو ان کے حق سے محروم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ مقدمہ کے حقائقاگست 2015 میں انسپکٹر (BPS-16) کی 25 آسامیاں خالی ہوئیں۔ درخواست گزار سب انسپکٹر تھے اور ترقی کے اہل تھے۔ تاہم محکمہ کی جانب سے تیار کردہ سینیارٹی لسٹ میں بے ضابطگیوں کے باعث مقدمہ بازی شروع ہوئی اور ڈیپارٹمنٹل پروموشن کمیٹی (DPC) کا اجلاس تقریباً دو سال تاخیر کا شکار رہا۔ بعد ازاں سٹے آرڈر ختم ہونے پر 2017 میں درخواست گزاروں کو ترقی دے دی گئی، مگر انہوں نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ ان کی ترقی اگست 2015 سے مؤثر سمجھی جائے۔ بنیادی قانونی سوالکیا محکمہ اپنی انتظامی غلطیوں یا عدالتی تنازعات کی بنیاد پر ترقی کے عمل میں تاخیر کر کے اہل افسران کو ان کے حق سے محروم رکھ سکتا ہے؟ سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہسپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا: (1) تاخیر محکمہ کی اپنی غلطی کا نتیجہ تھی، درخواست گزار اس میں قصوروار نہیں تھے۔ (2) محکمہ اپنی کوتاہی کا فائدہ نہیں اٹھا سکتا۔ (3) جیسے ہی آسامی خالی ہو اور افسر اہل ہو، اس کا حق برائے غور پیدا ہو جاتا ہے۔ (4) بلاجواز تاخیر آئین کے آرٹیکل 4 اور 25 کے تحت منصفانہ سلوک اور مساوات کے اصولوں کے منافی ہے۔ (5) درخواست گزاروں کی ترقی اگست 2015 سے مؤثر سمجھی جائے گی۔ قانونی اصولیہ فیصلہ اس اصول کو مضبوط کرتا ہے کہ: خالی آسامی کو معقول مدت میں پُر کرنا ریاست کی ذمہ داری ہے۔ جائز توقع (Legitimate Expectation) سرکاری ملازمین کا تسلیم شدہ حق ہے۔ انتظامی سستی یا اندرونی تنازعات ترقی کے حق کو معطل نہیں کر سکتے۔ نتیجہسپریم کورٹ نے سروس ٹریبونل کا فیصلہ کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے درخواست گزاروں کو ریٹروسپیکٹو (ماضی سے مؤثر) ترقی دینے کا حکم دیا۔ یہ فیصلہ سروس لا میں ایک اہم نظیر ہے جو سرکاری ملازمین کے آئینی اور انتظامی حقوق کو مضبوط بنیاد فراہم کرتا ہے۔ Must read judgmentPLD 2026 Supreme Court 64 Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, II NAEEM KHAN NIAZI and others-Petitioners. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another Respondents Civil Petitions Nos. 954, 981 to 983 of 2022, decided on 30th September, 2025, (Against the judgment dated 26.01.2022 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeals Nos. 1563(R)CS to 1566(R)CS/2019). (a) Civil service--- orders-C ous au -Promotion-Vacancies arising in 2015-Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) delayed for two years by department due to stay then Sub-Inspectors, was that the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Inspector (BPS-16) should have been considered from Civil servants' right to be considered for promotion from the date of vacancy-Scope The case of the petitioners, who were August, 2015 when 25 vacancies to the post of 'inspector' occurred Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was delayed till 2017 due to stay orders-Upon vacation of stay orders petitioners were promoted to the post of inspectors-It was the case of the petitioners that th should have been considered for promotion we.f. August 2015 Held: The delay in the present case could not be regarded as justified-It was occasioned by litigation arising out of irregularities in the seniority list prepared by the department itself, which litigation was ultimately decided against the department The stay orders, therefore, were a direct consequence of the department's own flawed exercise and not of any conduct attributable to the petitioners-In the present case, the petitioners were blameless, and the delay, spanning over two years, was excessive by any standard of reasonablene eness-To accept the department's argument would mean that even if such litigation dragged on for a decade or more, eligible officers would be deprived of promotion until the very end of their careers, thereby reducing the constitutional guarantee of fair consideration to a mere formality-Such an outcome could not be countenanced---The fair and lawful course, therefore, was to reckon the petitioners' promotion from the date the vacancies first arose in August 2015, notwithstanding the intervening delay-Impugned judgment passed by the service tribunal was set aside-Present petitions were converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances. of (b) Civil service Promotion-Right to be considered for promotion Scope-A civil servant's claim to promotion crystallizes the moment a vacancy within their quota arises, provided they meet the prescribed eligibility criteria-At that stage, a corresponding duty is cast upon the competent authority to consider the officer's case fairly and in good time-Administrative indecision, internal disputes, or managerial laxity cannot be pleaded as excuses to defer the process once a substantive vacancy exists--The failure to act amounts to arbitrariness and undermines the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which demands that civil servants be treated in accordance with established norms of fairness and predictability. (c) Civil service-- Vacant posts-Administration to fill fill vacant posts, duty of--The settled principle of pub ublic administration is that every sanctioned post exists to serve a functional need of the State, and must be filled within a reasonable time after falling vacant--Unless a post has been lawfully abolished, frozen pursuant to a demonstrable policy of fiscal constraint, or withheld due to overriding and transparent public exigencies, the administration is bound to proceed with filling it-Vacancies left un addressed foster ad-hocism, informal delegation, opacity, which in turn opens the door nepotism favoritism-When a vacancy arises it must be filled without unjustified delay, for timely consideration is an essential incident of service and an element of fair treatment under Articles 4 and 25 Constitution. (d) Civil service-- -Vacant posts, non-filling of-Delay in constituting Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) causing delay in promotion--Doctrine of legitimate expectation-Applicability-To describe the delay in promoting the employees as "justified" would, in effect, permit the administration to take advantage of its own wrong and visit innocent officers with the adverse consequences of disputes in which they had no role-This would be wholly inequitable and inconsistent with the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which entitles civil servants to be considered for promotion as soon as vacancies arise. Petitioners in Person (in all cases). Munawwar Iqbal Duggal, Addi, A.G.P. along with Jair Nasrani, DD HR, FIA along with Sajjad Hussain, Deputy Director (Law), FIA for the Respondents (in call cases). |