SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
 
[Against the judgment dated 22.06.2020, passed by the High 
Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P.No.D-253 of 2015]  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chairman National Accountability Bureau 
through 
Prosecutor 
General 
Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Sector 
G-5/1, Islamabad 
 
 
 
…Appellant (s) 
Versus 
Faraz Ahmed Sherwani son of Afroz 
Ahmed Sherwani and others.  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Imran ul Haq, Deputy Prosecutor 
General, NAB 
Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, AOR  
 
  
For Respondents No.1-2 
: Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, 
ASC 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 09.06.2021 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
GULZAR AHMED, CJ.-  The Respondents No.1 & 2 
(the 
respondents) 
were 
initially 
appointed 
as 
Regular 
Stenographers (BPS-15) vide Notification dated 29.07.2004 by the 
appellant. The Finance Division, Government of Pakistan issued 
Office Memorandum dated 23.12.2011, by which the post of 
Stenographer was up-graded from BPS-15 to BPS-16. The benefit 
of such Office Memorandum was given to the respondents and 
they 
were 
up-graded 
in 
BPS-16 
vide 
Notification 
dated 
31.07.2012. In the meantime, the respondents were promoted to 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
the post of Personal Assistant (BPS-16) with effect from 
27.06.2012 vide Notification dated 05.07.2012. The Respondent 
No.2 along with one Jawaid Ali Panhwar filed a Constitution 
Petition No.2056 of 2013, in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi 
(the High Court), in which prayer was made that the 
respondents/petitioner be granted promotion in BPS-16 with 
effect from 31.05.2007, when the vacancies became available and 
till such time the respondents be restrained from holding 
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for grant of promotion 
and also prayed that the post of Personal Assistant be up-graded 
as done in the case of Private Secretary, Stenographer and Steno-
typist. 
Para-13 
of 
this 
very 
Constitution 
Petition, 
the 
respondents/petitioners have alleged as follows: - 
 
“That it may be submitted that six posts of 
Private Secretary (BPS-17) remained vacant for 
filling up through 100% promotion quota 
amongst Personal Assistant (BPS-16) in NAB. 
But despite promotions to the post of (BPS-17) 
from amongst the officers of NAB & Regional 
NAB's, the Departmental Promotion Committee 
constituted 
on 
06.02.2013 
in 
NAB 
HQ 
Islamabad 
did 
not 
follow 
the 
method 
of 
promotion shown in the NAB TCS. These vacant 
posts have been filled amongst the 4 X Personal 
Assistant (BPS-16) and 2X Stenographer (BPS-
16) without any legal/ cogent reason by way of 
promotion vide Notification dated 08.02.2013, 
due to which the Personal Assistants (BPS-16) 
including the Petitioners have suffered grave 
injustice besides huge financial loss on the one 
hand and have lost their seniority on the other 
hand. 
The 
method 
of 
promotion 
for 
Stenographers 
to 
Personal 
Assistant 
and 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
Personal Assistant to Assistant Director/Private 
Secretary 
should 
have 
been 
followed 
in 
accordance with the NAB TCS which has not 
been done in the instant promotion case. Hence, 
the whole process has become illegal, arbitrary 
and discriminatory qua the fundamental rights 
of the affected persons including the Petitioners 
have been violated.” 
2. 
 
This very Constitution Petition was disposed of by the 
High Court of Sindh vide its order dated 11.12.2013 with 
observations as follows: - 
 
The case of the petitioners is that they 
were 
promoted 
as 
Stenographers/Personal 
Assistants and are performing their duties in 
BPS-16. The petitioners are claiming that the 
Respondents No.5 and 6 were juniors to them in 
service, but in the DPC they have been 
considered and promoted to the posts of Private 
Secretaries/Assistant Directors in BPS-17. It is 
further alleged by the learned counsel for the 
petitioners that the petitioners were promoted 
from the post of Stenographers to the Personal 
Assistants, while the Respondents No.5 and 6 
were 
promoted 
from 
the 
post 
of 
Stenographers/Personal Assistants to the post 
of Private Secretaries/Assistant Directors. The 
petitioners prayed that they may be treated at 
par and may not be discriminated while they are 
also serving with the Respondent No.1 for the 
last several years.  
Mr. S. Amjad Ali Shah, Special Prosecutor 
for NAB/Respondents No.1 to 4 as well as Mr. 
Muhammad 
Asif 
Mangi, 
learned 
Standing 
Counsel both have contended that the case of 
the petitioners will be considered in the next 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
DPC and if they will be found eligible, they will 
be promoted on the basis of their performance 
and previous ACRs and they will be treated alike 
with the Respondents No.5 and 6. Upon such 
statement, learned counsel for the petitioners 
are satisfied.  
 
This petition is disposed of with the 
directions to the Respondents No.1 to 4 to 
consider the case of the petitioners in the next 
DPC.” 
3. 
 
Pursuant to this order of the High Court, the cases of 
the respondents were placed before the DPC. Vide Notification 
dated 27.05.2014, the respondents were promoted on regular 
basis to the post of Private Secretary (BPS-17) with effect from 
22.05.2014. The respondents filed Constitution Petition No.253 of 
2015 in the High Court of Sindh challenging the Notification dated 
27.05.2014 being contrary to the rules and fundamental rights of 
the respondents and sought direction to consider the respondents 
for promotion against the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17) with 
effect from 24.07.2012, the date when the respondents became 
eligible for promotion in accordance with their 25% prescribed 
quota available for promotion.  
4. 
 
This very constitution petition filed by the respondents 
was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 
24.10.2017. The review application filed by the respondents before 
the High Court was also dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2017. 
The respondents filed Civil Petition No.687-K of 2017 in this 
Court. Vide order dated 31.12.2018, this Court passed the 
following order:  
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 5 - 
 
 
 
“Having heard the learned counsel and perused 
the record and further documents that have 
been placed on record through CMA No. 1867-K 
of 2018 whereby the creation of the post, 
method of its appointment and adaptation of the 
government rules by the NAB were not before 
the 
High 
Court, 
therefore, 
we 
deem 
it 
appropriate by consent of the parties to remand 
the matter to learned bench of High Court to 
consider 
the 
documents. 
The 
impugned 
judgment is being set aside without dilating 
upon the implication of such documents which 
are sought to be placed before us. The 
documents sought to be filed by the NAB before 
this court shall be filed before learned bench of 
High Court and the bench may on the 
consideration of such documents or any other 
documents as may be sought to be placed by the 
parties may proceed to hear the matter afresh 
and decide the same without being influenced by 
its earlier decision within a period of not more 
than six months from the date of this order. 
 
Petition is accordingly converted into appeal, 
Impugned Judgment is set aside. Matter is 
remanded. C.P. No. D-253 of 2015 shall be 
deemed to be pending and shall be decided as 
directed above.” 
5. 
 
Pursuant to the order of remand through the 
impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the constitution 
petition filed by the respondents striking down the notification 
dated 27.05.2014, whereby the respondents were promoted to the 
post of the Private Secretary (BPS-17) and directed to re-visit the 
nomenclature of the respondents so as to suitably designate them 
against any of the notified posts in place under TCS-2002 as on 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 6 - 
 
 
 
27.05.2014. We may note that the High Court has not specifically 
granted relief to the respondents that they be promoted to the post 
of Assistant Director (BPS-17) rather has directed the appellant to 
re-visit the nomenclature of the respondents and suitably 
designate them as per TCS-2002. So it means that the 
nomenclature to be given to the respondents in terms of TCS-2002 
on their promotion from the post of Personal Assistant (BPS-16) 
could be anyone i.e. Assistant Director, Investigation Officer or 
Section Officer (BPS-17), because in the TCS-2002, these are the 
three posts available for promotion from the post of Personal 
Assistant (BPS-16). We note that while giving the impugned 
judgment, the High Court did not materially comply with the order 
of remand dated 31.12.2018, where it was specifically noted that 
further documents placed on record through CMA No.1867-K of 
2018, whereby creation of the post, method of its appointment 
and adaptation of the government rules by the NAB were not 
before the High Court and therefore, by consent of the parties the 
matter was remanded to the High Court to consider the 
documents.  
6. 
 
In the first place, we note that respondent No.2 in his 
earlier Constitution Petition No.2056 of 2013 before the High 
Court of Sindh has specifically made a mention that six posts of 
Privates Secretary (BPS-17) remained vacant for filling up through 
100% quota amongst Personal Assistants (BPS-16) in NAB. 
Respondent No.2 has, thus, admitted as a fact that there were 
posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17), which were provided to be fill 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 7 - 
 
 
 
in through 100% promotion quota from amongst the Personal 
Assistant (BPS-16) in NAB. This very fact, which was available on 
the record was omitted to be considered by the High Court.  
7. 
 
We have gone through the history of employment of 
Private Secretary (BPS-17) in the establishment of NAB and have 
noted that as back as on 15.11.2002, three temporary posts of 
Private Secretary (BPS-17) were created. The very TCS-2002 was 
amended by Corrigendum dated 19.02.2003 and the post of 
Private Secretary (BPS-17) was added in TCS-2002. The addition 
of the post of Private Secretary (BPS-17), however, was cancelled 
from TCS-2002 vide Corrigendum dated 28.09.2004. Though this 
cancellation was made but the NAB continued to employ Private 
Secretaries in BPS-17 on temporary basis, in that, three 
temporary posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17), were extended for 
the Financial Year 2005-2006. One more temporary post of Private 
Secretary (BPS-17) was created vide order dated 15.02.2006 and 
again one more post of Private Secretary (BPS-17) was created vide 
order dated 24.03.2006. Five temporary posts of Private Secretary 
(BPS-17) were extended for one year till 31.05.2007. These were 
continued for the Financial Year 2007-2008 vide order dated 
22.07.2007. On 02.01.2008, three temporary posts of Private 
Secretary (BPS-17) were converted into permanent posts. Two 
Private Secretary (BPS-17) who remain on temporary posts were 
extended for the Financial Year 2008-2009 vide order dated 
11.07.2008 and the same were also continued for the Financial 
Year 2009-2010 vide order dated 10.12.2009 and for the Financial 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 8 - 
 
 
 
Year 2011-2012 vide order dated 28.07.2011. Vide order dated 
30.01.2012, two temporary posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) 
were converted to permanent posts. Thus, on this date there were 
five permanent posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) in NAB. Again 
on 01.06.2012 one temporary post of Private Secretary (BPS-17) 
was created and on 10.07.2012, five more temporary posts of 
Private Secretary (BPS-17) were created.  On 29.03.2013, four 
more temporary posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) were created. 
In all, there were thus, ten temporary posts of Private Secretary 
(BPS-17) which continued until Financial Year 2018-2019 vide 
orders dated 18.07.2013, 23.07.2014, 10.07.2015, 31.07.2016, 
07.07.2017 and 03.07.2018. Thus, at the time when the 
notification 
dated 
27.05.2014 
was 
issued, 
by 
which 
the 
respondents were promoted on regular basis on the post of Private 
Secretary (BPS-17), there existed in the organization of the NAB, 
five permanent posts and ten temporary posts of Private Secretary 
(BPS-17).  
8. 
 
To support that the respondents were justifiably 
promoted to the post of Private Secretary (BPS-17), the appellant 
has relied upon the above orders by which the posts of Private 
Secretary (BPS-17) were created in NAB. The respondents have 
further taken a stand that in exercise of the powers under 
paragraph No.14.08 of TCS-2002 the NAB has adopted the rules 
applicable to the other civil servants on 24.10.2005, which 
specifically provides, inter alia, as follows:  
It is further pointed out that despite these FIA 
posts, the recruitment rules of following three 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 9 - 
 
 
 
categories of NAB’s own posts are also required 
to be framed out since their creation: - 
 
a.  
Private Secretary (BPS-17) x 3 posts 
b.  
Librarian (BPS-17) x 1 post 
c. 
Protocol Officer (BPS-16) x 1 post 
 
Foregoing in view, in light of Deputy Financial 
Advisor, Finance Division’s remarks and to 
proceed further in the case, the following course 
of actions are proposed: - 
 
a.  
……………………………………………… 
b. 
……………………………………………… 
c. 
We may fill the three posts of PS 
(BS-17), one post of Librarian (BS-
17) and one post of Protocol Officer 
(BS-16) 
by 
adopting 
the 
rules 
applicable to the other civil servants 
in light of para 14.08 of NAB TCS; 
d. 
We may fill all the vacant posts 
related 
to 
promotion 
quota 
by 
holding the respective Departmental 
Selection Committees meeting or by 
grant of current charge to meet the 
remarks 
of 
Deputy 
Financial 
Advisor; and”  
9. 
 
This adoption was made with the approval of the 
Chairman, NAB, given on 24.10.2005. Further reliance has been 
placed by the respondents on SRO No.99(KE)/87, dated 
22.10.1987, which provides as follows: 
“In pursuance of sub-rule(2) of rule 3 of the Civil 
Servants (Appointment, Promotion and transfer) 
Rules, 1973, the following method, qualifications 
and 
other 
conditions 
are 
laid 
down 
for 
appointment to the post of Private Secretary 
(BPS-17) to the Secretary/Additional Secretary 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 10 - 
 
 
 
and other officers in BPS 22/21 in the Federal 
Government: - 
2. 
Method of Appointment:- Appointment to 
the post shall be made by promotion on the 
basis 
of 
selection 
by 
the 
DPC 
of 
the 
Ministry/Division/Department concerned and 
with the approval of the appointing authority, 
from 
amongst 
the 
regularly 
appointed 
Stenographers 
of 
the 
Ministry/Division/ 
Department concerned: 
Provided that failing promotion, the post of 
Private Secretary shall be filed by transfer in 
accordance with para 4 below. 
3. 
Conditions for Promotion:- Promotion to the 
post in column 1 below shall be made by 
selection from amongst the persons who hold 
the post specified in column 2 on a regular basis 
and 
possess 
qualifications 
and 
experience 
prescribed in column 3: 
Name of 
the Post 
Persons eligible 
Conditions of 
eligibility 
Private 
Secretary 
(BPS-17) 
Regularly appointed 
Stenographers, 
including those in 
the selection grade. 
Seven 
Year 
satisfactory 
Service 
as 
stenographer, 
including service in 
selection grade. 
 
10. 
 
It seems that for appointment to the post of Private 
Secretary (BPS-17), the respondents have adopted the rules as 
mentioned in the SRO dated 22.10.1987 and this very aspect of 
adoption was not disputed from the side of the respondents, 
rather as noted above, respondent No.2 in his earlier constitution 
petition before the High Court had admitted as a fact that the 
posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) were available in the 
establishment of NAB which were to be filled in by 100% 
promotion quota from amongst the Personal Assistants (BPS-16).  
11. 
 
All these documents, which were placed on the record 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 11 - 
 
 
 
and landing support to the case of the appellant that there existed 
the posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) in the organizational set up 
of NAB and said posts were to be filled in through 100% 
promotion quota from amongst the Personal Assistants (BPS-16), 
remained altogether concealed or at least not adverted to by the 
learned Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned 
judgment, although this Court while remanding the matter has 
emphasized that all these documents be considered by the High 
Court.  
12. 
 
The question remains that what is the effect of the 
introduction of the posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) in the 
organizational set up of the appellant, more particularly, in view of 
TCS-2002. It is admitted that TCS-2002 was formally amended 
vide SRO No.1106(I)/2015, dated 30.10.2015, wherein in “Method 
of Appointment” at Serial No.9, the post of Private Secretary (BPS-
17) is mentioned and the method of appointment is 100% by 
promotion. The post of Stenographer (BPS-16) has been omitted 
and the post of Assistant Private Secretary (BPS-16) has been 
created. In the “Conditions for Promotion” to the post of Private 
Secretary (BPS-17) the persons eligible for promotion are Assistant 
Private Secretary (BPS-16) rather than Stenographer (BPS-16). 
This very SRO although was issued on 30.10.2015 and published 
in the Gazette of Pakistan on 11.11.2015 but in actual fact, the 
posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) already existed in the 
organizational set up of the appellant way back from 15.11.2002 
and on 02.01.2008, three temporary posts of Private Secretary 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 12 - 
 
 
 
(BPS-17) were converted into permanent posts and then on 
30.01.2012, two more posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) were 
converted into permanent posts. The respondents were aware of 
the fact that these posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) did exist in 
the NAB and these posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) were being 
filled up by 100% promotion from amongst the post of Personal 
Assistant/Stenographer (BPS-16), which is apparent from the plea 
of respondent No.2 in his very Constitution Petition No.2056 of 
2013.  
13. 
 
The respondents have also referred to the notification 
dated 30.04.2007 whereby Mr. Shaukat Ali, Mr. Liaqat Ali, Mr. 
Qaleem-ud-Din Qureshi, Mr. Muhammad Shabbir and Mr. Tariq 
Mehmood were promoted from the posts of Personal Assistants 
(BPS-16) on the recommendation of DPC as Private Secretary 
(BPS-17). Further, Mr. Muhammad Maroof, Stenographer (BPS-
16), Mr. Arshad Mehmood, Personal Assistant (BPS-16), Mr. 
Arshad Khan, Personal Assistant (BPS-16), Mr. Muhammad 
Sohail, Personal Assistant (BPS-16), Mr. Riasat Ali Khan, 
Stenographer (BPS-16) and Mr. Mukhtar Ali, Personal Assistant 
(BPS-16) were promoted to the posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) 
vide notification dated 08.02.2012. Through the notification 
impugned by the respondents dated 27.05.2014, Syed Waqar 
Hussain, Ms. Izzat Khatoon, Mr. Iltaf Hussain, Mr. M. Khalid 
Farooq, Mr. Faraz Ahmed Sherwani and Mr. Muhammad Zafar 
Ahmad, (the last two are the respondents) were all promoted to 
the posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17). Apparently, only the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 13 - 
 
 
 
respondents have challenged the notification, while the remaining 
seem to have accepted their promotion, as there is nothing on 
record to show that they have not accepted their promotion to the 
posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17).  
14. 
 
There is no dispute that TCS-2002 did not mention the 
post of Private Secretary (BPS-17) but the fact remains that firstly 
the Private Secretary, though on temporary post, was appointed in 
the NAB on 15.11.2002. Subsequently, more Private Secretaries 
were appointment on 15.02.2006, 24.03.2006, 01.06.2012, 
10.07.2012 and 29.03.2013, while three temporary posts were 
converted into permanent posts on 02.01.2008 and further two 
permanent posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) were created on 
30.01.2012. It is also not disputed that the posts of Private 
Secretary (BPS-17) were created in NAB by adopting the rules 
applicable to the Government Servants. Thus, the posts of Private 
Secretary (BPS-17), apparently, were created by following the rules 
as were applicable to the Government Servants and this was done 
under paragraph 14.08 of TCS-2002, which provides as follows:  
 
“In matters not covered, under these TCS the 
employees of the NAB shall be governed by the 
rules applicable to the other civil servants and 
the instructions issued from time to time by the 
Federal Government on such subject.”  
 
Thus, on the basis of this very paragraph in TCS-2002, in 
matters not covered under the TCS-2002, the employees of NAB 
were to be governed by the rules as applicable to the other civil 
servants and instructions issued from time to time by the Federal 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 14 - 
 
 
 
Government on the subject. The rules applicable to the civil 
servants for appointment to the posts of Private Secretary (BPS-
17) were adopted by NAB on 24.10.2005 and as quoted above, the 
rules applicable to other civil servants in the light of paragraph 
14.08 of TCS-2002 were applicable to the posts of Private 
Secretary (BPS-17). Thus, as it appears that the posts of Private 
Secretary (BPS-17) were created in NAB by adopting the rules, as 
noted above, on 24.10.2005, for all intends and purposes, in our 
view, TCS-2002 stood amended by adoption of the rules applicable 
to other civil servants in respect of the posts of Private Secretary 
(BPS-17) on 24.10.2005. When the posts were created by following 
the rules as were applicable to the other civil servants, obviously 
the manner in which they were to be filled in was also to be 
adopted and such adoption was provided in SRO dated 
22.10.1987 where the posts of Private Secretary (BPS-17) were to 
be filled in from amongst the Stenographers, including those in 
the Selection Grade. The post of Stenographer and the post of 
Personal Assistant, both being in BPS-16, their line of promotion 
as per rules was to the post of Private Secretary (BPS-17). 
Reference in this regard is made to the case of Muhammad Amin 
v. Chief Engineer, Irrigation and others  [2012 PLC (C.S.) 834], 
wherein this Court has observed as follows:- 
“7. 
The appellant's case for the purpose of 
promotion to the post of Superintendent will 
depend upon the Rules applicable to him in 
the year 1993. The two relevant Rules are, as 
stated above, of 1962 and 1998, on which 
reliance is placed by the appellant and the 
amendments brought about in the years 
1983, 1985 and 1986, on which the case of 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 15 - 
 
 
 
the respondents rests. Undoubtedly, under 
the 1962 Rules, made especially for the 
Irrigation and Power Department, there was 
no mention of Senior Scale Stenographer 
and promotion to the post of Superintendent 
was to be made from combined seniority list 
of Stenographers and Assistants. These 
Rules 
for 
the 
Irrigation 
and 
Power 
Department were entirely replaced by the 
1998 Rules, wherein the post of Senior Scale 
Stenographer was also incorporated and 
promotion to the post of Superintendent was 
to be made from Senior Scale Stenographers 
and not Stenographers. In between these two 
Rules, the Governor of Punjab, in exercise of 
the powers conferred upon him by section 23 
of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, 
amended the Rules in the year 1983, 
whereby 
the 
post 
of 
Senior 
Scale 
Stenographer was introduced and promotion 
to the post of Superintendent was to be 
made from the Senior Scale Stenographers. 
These Rules were further amended in the 
years 1985 and 1986 but as far as the 
method of the said promotion, the Rule 
remained unchanged. These Rules were 
made applicable to all the Government 
Departments of Punjab, which obviously 
included 
the 
Irrigation 
and 
Power 
Department. The 1962 Rules thus stood 
amended 
by 
implication. 
The 
learned 
counsel for the appellant had referred to the 
advice of December, 1990 given by the 
Government of Punjab, Services, General 
Administration and Information Department, 
to the Irrigation and Power Department, 
stating that the service Rules of the latter 
Department needed to be amended so as to 
reflect the change, to include the post of 
Senior Scale Stenographer, from which 
promotion is to be made to the post of 
Superintendent. This advice, however, does 
not mean that the 1983 amendment in the 
Rules remained inapplicable to the Irrigation 
and Power Department. The advice of 
changing Rules was meant to remove any 
confusion 
in 
the 
Irrigation 
Department 
regarding 
promotion 
to 
the 
post 
of 
Superintendent. The advice explicitly stated 
that the promotions were to be made in 
accordance with the changed Rules. It was 
made clear that under the scheme of Basic 
Pay Scale the original posts of Stenographer 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1000 of 2020 
- 16 - 
 
 
 
and Stenotypist have been changed to those 
of 
Senior 
Scale 
Stenographer 
and 
Stenographer, respectively. The 1998 Rules 
relating 
to 
the 
Irrigation 
and 
Power 
Department were replacement of the 1962 
Rules and the change already made about by 
the 1983 amendment were reflected therein. 
It cannot be said that the change regarding 
promotion in the Irrigation and Power 
Department was made for the first time in 
the year 1998. It was already in existence 
since 1983 and thus expressly incorporated 
in the year 1998.” 
 
The principle laid down by this Court as noted above is fully 
applicable to the case in hand.   
15. 
 
For all the reasons discussed above, we find that the 
impugned judgment of the High Court is not sustainable. The 
same is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.  
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
Bench-I 
 
‘APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
Rabbani/* 
JUDGE 
  
Announced on ______________ at _____________. 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE