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.40 of 2021  
[Against the judgments dated 12.09.2019, passed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
Service Tribunal, Peshawar in Appeal No.625/2018] 
 
 
Secretary 
Agriculture, 
Livestock 
& 
Cooperation Department, Peshawar & others. 
 
… Appellant(s) 
Versus 
Anees Ahmad. 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
 
: Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Additional 
Advocate General, KP 
Asad 
ud 
Din, 
Asif 
Jan, 
Superintendents 
Javaid 
Maqbool 
Butt, 
Incharge 
Litigation, Agriculture Department, KP 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s) 
: Mr. Fazal Shah Mohmand, ASC 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 08.06.2021 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Gulzar Ahmed, CJ.— Facts of the matter are that the 
respondent was promoted to the post of Office Assistant (BPS-14) 
in the year 2004 and his post was up-graded to BPS-16 in the year 
2014. The service rules were notified on 20.04.2012, providing 
90% quota for promotion on seniority-cum-fitness basis among the 
holders of the posts of Assistant/Accountant, who have completed 
five years’ service. In the year 2013, post of Superintendent 
became vacant. The working-paper for promotion of the respondent 
was prepared where his name appeared at Serial No.2. The 
C.A.No.40 of 2021 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
Departmental Promotion Committee (the DPC) was scheduled on 
19.06.2017 but it was delayed to 19.10.2017. On 19.10.2017 the 
case of the respondent for promotion was not considered by the 
DPC for the reason that he had already retired on attaining the age 
of superannuation on 21.06.2017. The respondent filed service 
appeal in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar 
(the Tribunal), by the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2019, the 
service appeal of the respondent was allowed and the appellants 
were directed to consider the case of the respondent for pro forma 
promotion from the date of his retirement.  
2. 
 
We have heard the learned Additional Advocate 
General, KP (AAG) and have also gone through the record of the 
case.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has 
supported the impugned judgment.   
4. 
 
The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agriculture, 
Livestock 
& 
Cooperation 
Department, 
Peshawar 
(AL&C 
Department, KP) issued Notification dated 20.04.2012 containing 
the rules of recruitment. Item No.36 of the rules is as follows: - 
S.No. 
Nomenclature 
of post 
Qualification for 
appointment by 
initial recruitment. 
Age limit 
Method of recruitment. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
PART-II 
MINISTERIAL STAFF 
36. 
Superintenden
ts (BPS-16). 
 
 
a). Ninety percent by promotion, 
on the basis of seniority-cum-
fitness, from amongst the holders 
of 
the 
posts 
of 
Assistant/Accountants with five 
years service as such; and  
b). ten percent by promotion, on 
the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, 
from Senior Scale Stenographers 
with five years service as such.  
 
C.A.No.40 of 2021 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
5. 
 
Working-paper was prepared and the same was sent to 
the Secretary, AL&C Department, KP vide letter dated 26.05.2017. 
Model Working Paper, which is at Page-29 of the record shows that 
there were 08 posts of Superintendent (BPS-17) lying vacant in AE 
Department. Ninety percent of these posts were to be filled by 
promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness from the post of 
Assistant/Accountant having five years’ service. In para-5 of this 
Model Working Paper appears a chart containing names of 14 
Office Assistants. At Serial No.1 is the name of Muhammad Alam, 
it is mentioned that he has opted to forgo his promotion. At Serial 
No.2 appears the name of respondent. In the last but one para of 
this very Model Working Paper, following has been certified by the 
Director General, AE Department: - 
 
“It is certified that all the officials included in the panel for 
promotion:- 
i. 
Hold the lower post on regular basis and none of 
them is holding the post on adhoc basis. 
ii. 
No 
departmental 
examination 
has 
been 
prescribed 
for 
promotion 
to 
the 
post 
of 
Superintendent.  
iii. 
No disciplinary /Departmental proceeding/anti-
corruption case /judicial inquiry are pending 
nor has any penalty been imposed during the 
last five years against any of the official of the 
penal. 
iv. 
The seniority list of the Office Assistant is final 
and un-disputed. 
 
6. 
 
The very perusal of the Model Working Paper shows 
that the respondent has completed requisite five years’ service 
provided by the rules and the Director General, AE Department, 
has also certified that there is no impediment in grant of promotion 
to the persons named in the Model Working Paper.  
C.A.No.40 of 2021 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
7. 
 
The DPC for considering the promotion was held on 
19.06.2017 but was adjourned on the pretext that fresh option of 
officials forgoing their promotion be obtained. This is mentioned in 
the letter of the Director General, AE Department dated 
28.11.2018 at page-31 of the record. After adjourning of this 
meeting by DPC, the next DPC meeting took place on 19.10.2017 
and in the meantime, the respondent retired from service on 
21.06.2017.  
8. 
 
Learned Additional Advocate General has contended 
that promotion to the post of Superintendent (BPS-17) was to be 
made on seniority-cum-fitness basis and this very aspect was to be 
determined by the DPC and as the DPC having not determined the 
matter of seniority-cum-fitness, respondent, could not be granted 
pro forma promotion after his retirement. He has further contended 
that the case of promotion of Superintendent (BPS-17) was placed 
before the DPC on 19.10.2017, but it was not considered as 
respondent has retired on 21.06.2017 and no illegality was 
committed. He was of the view that only the DPC is competent to 
consider the grant of promotion and in case, it does not consider or 
grant promotion, no other forum is competent to decide the 
question of granting of promotion or pro forma promotion. As to the 
last submission with due respect, we tend to disagree with the 
learned AAG for the reason that no doubt it is a function of the 
DPC to consider the case of promotion of the government servant 
but where the DPC in violation of law and rules omits to consider 
or omits to grant promotion, the remedies before statutory 
Courts/Tribunals are provided by law and such remedies could be 
C.A.No.40 of 2021 
- 5 - 
 
 
 
availed by the aggrieved government servant and it is for the 
Courts/Tribunals to consider and decide whether the DPC has 
validly omitted to consider or omitted to grant promotion in 
accordance with law and rules.  
9. 
 
In the present case the DPC has not considered the 
case for promotion of respondent and the reason assigned is that 
he has retired. This reason given by the DPC, apparently, is no 
reason in law, in that, once the Model Working Paper for promotion 
of respondent was placed before the DPC, it was incumbent upon it 
to have considered and decided the same, for that, though the law 
does not confer any vested right to a government servant to grant 
of promotion but the government servant surely has a right in law 
to be considered for grant of promotion. It is because of the 
department’s own non-vigilance and the DPC being insensitive to 
the employees who were on the verge of retirement of which the 
employees could not be made responsible, cannot simply brush 
aside the case of an employee by merely saying that he has retired. 
Once the case of respondent has matured for promotion while in 
service and placed before the DPC before retirement, it was 
incumbent upon the DPC to fairly, justly and honestly consider his 
case and then pass an order of granting promotion and in case it 
does not grant promotion, to give reasons for the same. This was 
not done by the DPC and in our view such was a miscarriage of 
justice to respondent.  
10. 
 
In view of the above, we find that the impugned 
judgment of the Tribunal, directing the appellants to consider the 
case of promotion of respondent, does not suffer from any illegality 
C.A.No.40 of 2021 
- 6 - 
 
 
 
and is maintained. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. As the 
matter is quite old, we expect that the appellants will decide the 
question of promotion of respondent expeditiously, preferably 
within a period of three months from today.    
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Bench-I 
Islamabad  
08.06.2021 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
Rabbani*/ 
JUDGE