IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Review/Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
BENCH 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
 
 
Civil Misc. Application Nos. 687, 719 & 1551 of 2017 
(Interim Reports by AIG Legal for I.G. Punjab, Home Department, Govt. of 
Punjab and Inspector General of Police, Punjab respectively) 
In 
Civil Review Petition No. 49 of 2016 
 
AND 
 
Crl. Org. Petition No. 33/2017 in CRP. 481/2016 in CA No. 184-L/2013 
(For non-compliance of the orders dated 26.01.2016 and 30.12.2016 passed by 
this Court in CA No. 184-L/2013 and CRP No. 481/16) 
 
 
Khalid Mehmood Afzal   
Vs  
 
Mushtaq Sukhera, IG Police & others 
 
AND 
 
Crl. Org. Petition No. 55/2017 in CRP. 482/2016 in CA No. 184-L/2013 
(For non-compliance of the orders dated 26.01.2016 and 30.12.2016 passed by 
this Court in CA No. 184-L/2013 and CRP No. 481/16) 
 
 
Malik Muhammad Sabir   
Vs  
 
Mushtaq Sukhera, IG Police 
 
 
AND 
 
Crl. Org. Petition No. 60/2017 in Civil Review Petition No. 83/2016 
(For non-compliance of the orders dated 30.12.2016 passed by this Court in CRP No. 83/16) 
 
 
Awais Malik and others   
Vs   
 
Mushtaq Sukhera, IG Police & others  
 
AND 
 
Crl. Org. Petition No. 62/2017 in Civil Review Petition No. 89/2016 
(For non-compliance of the orders dated 30.12.2016 passed by this Court in CRP No. 89/16) 
 
 
Muhammad Haseeb  
 
Vs   
 
Muhammad Amin Vans and others 
 
 
In Attendance: 
For Govt. of Punjab : 
Mr. Shakeel-ur-Rehman, AG, Punjab 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Khalid Waheed, Addl.AG, Punjab. 
 
For the IG., Punjab 
: 
Mr. Kamran Adil, AIG Legal Police, Punjab.  
 
 
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
2
For Applicants/ Petitioners : 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
 
 
 
 
(in CMA.457/17 & Crl.MA. 490/17  
Crl.O.P.60/17) 
 
For the Applicant 
: 
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Sr. ASC 
(Akhtar Umar Hayat) 
 
Mr. Qusain Faisal Mufti, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
(in CMA.1755/17) 
 
For the Petitioner 
: 
Ms. Ayesha Hamid, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
(in Crl.O.P. 33/17) 
 
For the Petitioner 
: 
Sardar Ashiq Mehmood Khan Sadozai, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
 
 
 
(in Crl.O.P. 55/17) 
 
For Petitioner  
: 
Ms. Asma Jehangir, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(in Crl. O. P. 62/17) 
 
 
 
On Court Notice 
: 
Mr. Talat Farooq Sheikh, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Jameel Ahmed (In person)  
 
 
 
 
(in Crl.M.As.487-489/17) 
 
Dates of Hearing  
: 
27th & 28th March, 2017. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J:- These matters emanate out of two reported 
judgments of this Court, i.e. Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh 
(2013 SCMR 1752) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. Province of Sindh (2015 
SCMR 456), whereby this Court declared that the concept of out of turn 
promotions was unconstitutional and against the Fundamental Rights enshrined in 
the Constitution. The copies of these judgments were ordered to be sent amongst 
others to the Chief Secretaries of all the Provinces and the Secretary, 
Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan who were directed to streamline 
the service structure in the line with the directives contained in these judgments.  
2. 
On 26.01.2016, Civil Appeal No.184-L of 2013, came up for hearing 
before this Court, when this Court passed the following order: 
“3. 
…We expect that all out of turn promotions granted either 
to the police personnel on gallantry award or otherwise shall be 
undone within four weeks from today and their seniority be re-
fixed with their batch mates in terms of the directions contained in 
the aforesaid judgments. Out of turn promotions ranging from 
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
3
constable to any gazetted officer shall be streamlined in terms of 
the aforesaid two judgments. On completion of the exercise, the 
I.G Police Punjab, Home Secretary, Punjab and Chief Secretary, 
Punjab, shall submit compliance report with the Assistant 
Registrar of the Court for our perusal in chambers. This order 
shall be communicated to the I.G, Punjab, Home, Secretary, 
Punjab and Chief Secretary, Punjab, for their information and 
compliance and non-compliance of this judgment shall expose the 
concerned officials to contempt proceedings.”  
 
 
The aforesaid order was challenged through Civil Review Petition No.49 
of 2016, etc. by police officers who claimed that they had earned their out of turn 
promotions on the basis of acts of bravery during their duty or otherwise. The said 
Review Petitions along-with other applications were dismissed, by the judgment 
dated 30.12.2016, reported as Shahid Pervaiz v. Ejaz Ahmed (2017 SCMR 206) 
(hereinafter the “Shahid Pervaiz case”) . 
3. 
On 20.03.2017, the Home Department, Govt. of Punjab, and the Inspector 
General of Police, Punjab (“IG”), submitted their separate reports. The IG issued 
notices to all the police officers and after providing them with an opportunity of a 
hearing, prepared a comprehensive and voluminous report which dealt with the 
case of each police officer separately. The Additional Secretary (Police) of the 
Home Department vide letter dated 16.03.2017 objected to the report of the IG 
only to the extent that a few of the out of turn promotion cases were “judicially 
protected”.  It appears that these officers were granted out of turn promotion by 
judicial fora. The learned Advocate General, Punjab supports this letter of the 
Home Department, and both he and the counsel representing these officers 
contend that such promotions were also specifically saved by paragraphs 111 and 
143 of the judgment in Shahid Pervaiz case.  
4. 
For convenience, the referred to paragraphs 111 and 143 from the 
judgment of the Shahid Pervaiz case are reproduced hereunder: 
“111.  
Yet another anomalous consequence of this 
argument is that while two identical provincial laws are enacted 
and acted upon and one province repeals the law while the other 
continues with its operations. Subsequently, the vires of the law 
that continues on the statute books is examined by the Court and 
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
4
its provisions have found to be inconsistent with the Constitution 
or Fundamental Rights with the result that the benefits conferred 
or availed thereunder, unless protected by the category of past and 
closed transaction, have to be reversed and its deleterious effects 
undone. This category, quite obviously, consists of the cases 
wherein ‘out of turn promotion’ was granted to individuals, 
pursuant to the judgments of the High Court, Service Tribunal and 
the Supreme Court. They shall remain intact unless reviewed. Even 
otherwise, it does not appeal to logic that in such a situation, while 
those benefitting from a law which continued to be on the statute 
book and eventually found to be ultra vires the Constitution would 
stand deprived of such illegal benefits, those continuing to enjoy 
the same under the omitted/repealed law in other Province would 
stand protected. If an illegal benefit was accrued or conferred 
under a statute, whether repealed (omitted) or continuing, and its 
benefits continue to flow in favour of beneficiaries of such an 
unconstitutional Act, and it is declared ultra vires, the benefits so 
conferred would have to be reversed irrespective of the fact that 
the conferring Act was still on the statute book or not. Where such 
an anomalous situation surfaces – i.e. where one province 
continues to countenance the benefits of an unconstitutional 
(though repealed/omitted) Act, while the other Provincial statute 
has been struck down on the same touchstone, and thereby 
determined whether those enjoying benefits pursuant to the 
repealed law are entitled to continue to do so, such reversal of 
benefits is imperative.” 
“143.  
For the aforesaid reasons, all the listed Review 
Petitions and the Applications are dismissed. The I.G.P, Punjab, 
the Home Secretary, Punjab, and the Secretary, Establishment 
Division, are directed to comply with the judgment, by fixing the 
seniority of all the Police Officers who were given out of turn 
promotion alongwith their batch-mates, as if they were never given 
out of turn promotion. However, the orders of withdrawal of out of 
turn promotion passed by the Department/Competent Authority 
shall be recalled against the Police Officers who had earned out of 
turn promotions, pursuant to the judgments of superior 
Courts/Service Tribunals, as discussed in paragraph 111 of this 
judgment. For the purpose of compliance of this judgment, 
necessary D.P.C/Board, as the case may be, shall be immediately 
held without further loss of time and a compliance report be 
submitted to the Registrar of this Court for our perusal in 
Chambers. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one 
month. The Advocate General, Punjab, and the learned Attorney 
General for Pakistan shall communicate the directives of this 
Court to the relevant authorities.”  
 
5. 
The Advocate General Punjab (“the AG”) states that there was a conflict 
between the opinion of the Home Department and that of the Inspector General of 
Police on the point, whether the out of turn promotions given to some of the 
police officers were protected by the afore-quoted paragraphs of the judgment in 
the Shahid Pervaiz case. He relied upon the letter dated 16.03.2017 of the Home 
Department, Government of Punjab with regard to the out of turn promotion 
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
5
granted to the nine police officers mentioned in the said letter which was 
addressed to the Secretary Services, Government of Punjab, except Shahid 
Razzaq Qureshi who has since retired. According to the learned AG meetings 
were held to resolve the said controversy, but till date to no avail. The learned AG 
stated that there are three categories of persons who would be protected and 
would be construed to come within the purview of the aforesaid paragraphs 111 
and 143, which are:  
i. 
Where a Court had directed that a particular officer or official 
should be given out of turn promotion and a notification to this 
effect be issued; 
ii. 
Where an official or officer had approached a court and it was 
held that he be treated at par with some other official/officer 
who was given out of turn promotion since he had also 
participated in the same operation or encounter; and 
iii. 
An officer or official who was given out of turn promotion 
however later than his colleagues and after he had approached 
a court the date of his out of turn promotion was ante-dated to 
the date when his companions were given out of turn 
promotion. 
6. 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, learned senior ASC, represented eight officers, 
namely, Awais Malik, Ijaz Shafi Dogar, Muhammad Umer Wirk, Rana Shahid 
Pervez, Muhammad Usman Anwar, Naeem ul Hassan Babar, Syed Jammat Ali 
Bukhari 
and 
Karamat 
Ullah 
Malik. 
He 
states 
that the 
orders 
of 
cancellation/withdrawal of out of turn promotion of the first four police officers 
named by the Home department should be recalled. As regards the remaining four 
officers, the Home Department has not offered any view. The learned counsel 
contends that the said paragraphs 111 and 143 are very clear and by relying 
thereon states that, any out of turn promotion which was given to a police 
officer/official through any court order is protected and this protection extends to 
the following three categories of officials/officers:  
i. 
Those who approached a court and were allowed/granted 
out of turn promotion;  
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
6
ii. 
Those a court directed to grant out of turn promotion on the 
basis that the Department had granted out of turn 
promotion to some of the police officers/officials similarly 
placed; and  
iii. 
Those who the Department did not grant out of turn 
promotion but once a court had granted out of turn 
promotion thereafter the Department itself gave out of turn 
promotions to them in line with the principles laid down in 
the judgments despite the fact that the persons did not 
approach the Court. 
7. 
The learned Senior ASC Khawaja Haris Ahmed contends that this Court 
has specifically held in the said paragraphs 111 and 143, that out of turn 
promotions made on the basis of a court or tribunal’s order shall remain intact, 
however, the IG of Police Punjab has done away with even those out of turn 
promotions. He sought protection of the out of turn promotions granted to Awais 
Malik, Ijaz Shafi Dogar, Muhammad Umar Virk and Rana Shahid Parvez, stating 
that on 18.01.1997, Awais Malik alongwith other police officials was deputed to 
perform security duty and to protect the leaders of Sipah-e-Sahaba who had to 
appear in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Lahore where a bomb blast took 
place and he received injuries alongwith others. The others members of the Police 
party approached the Lahore High Court, by filing Writ Petition No.17474 of 
1997, seeking out of turn promotion and the High Court directed that a formal 
notification of their out of turn promotion be issued. Awais Malik also filed Writ 
Petition No.19749 of 1997 for grant of out of turn promotion as he was similarly 
placed and the learned High Court allowed the Writ Petition in terms of judgment 
passed in Writ Petition No.17474 of 1997, therefore, his case falls squarely within 
the parameters of paragraphs 111 and 143. As regards Ijaz Shafi, the learned 
senior ASC submitted, that he was granted out of turn promotion pursuant to the 
orders of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No.1257/2005, whereby 
it was directed that his case for grant of out of turn promotion be placed before the 
Provincial Selection Board; consequently, the Provincial Selection Board 
considered his case and recommended him for out of turn promotion as a Deputy 
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
7
Superintendent of Police (“DSP”) and later he was promoted as Superintendent of 
Police (“SP”), but he has been relegated to the post of DSP. As regards 
Muhammad Umer Virk, the learned senior ASC contended, that while he was 
posted as Inspector he had participated in an operation launched by the Police to 
curb the terrorist activities of Sipah-e-Muhammad, a militant group with its 
headquarters at Thokar Niaz Beg, Lahore. Since he was not granted out of turn 
promotion for his said act of bravery he approached the Lahore High Court 
through Writ Petition No. 17232 of 1997, which was accepted and it was 
observed that his case be placed before the Provincial Selection Board which shall 
ensure that his case is treated at par with those who had participated in the 
incident. As regards Shahid Pervez, the learned Senior ASC contended, that he 
also participated in the Thokar Niaz Beg incident and he also approached the 
Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No. 28879 of 1997, on the basis of 
discrimination, which was allowed and he was granted one step out of turn 
promotion. The Department assailed the High Court judgment before this Court 
by filing C.P. No. 259-L of 2000, which was dismissed on 26.04.2000 as it was 
time barred. 
8. 
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, the learned Senior ASC, appears on behalf of 
Akhtar Umer Hayat Lalika and in addition to adopting the arguments advanced by 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, Senior ASC, contended that the applicant had filed Writ 
Petition No. 2445 of 1995 for the grant of out of turn promotion on the basis of 
discrimination, which was allowed on 03.12.1996 and out of turn promotion as 
prayed for was granted. C.P. No. 656-L/1997 was filed before this Court by the 
Province of Punjab against the said order of the Writ Petition, but it was 
dismissed by this Court on 03.02.1998 as it was barred by time. However, the 
C.P. No. 1446-L/1997 filed by another official against the judgment in the said 
Writ Petition was dismissed on merits and the Civil Review No. 19-L of 1998 
filed in C.P 1446-L of 1997 was also dismissed by this Court on 08.07.1998. He 
next contended that the promotion of Akhtar Umer Hayat Lalika was a past and 
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
8
closed transaction in view of the judgments in his favour upto this Court, 
therefore, out of turn promotion granted to him is protected in view of the 
principles laid down in the said paragraphs 111 and 143. 
9. 
Ms. Asma Jehangir, the learned ASC, represents Applicant Muhammad 
Anjum adopted the arguments of Kh. Haris Ahmed, learned ASC. In addition, the 
learned ASC submits that the question of seniority was involved in the case of the 
Applicant and his case was erroneously dealt with by the Department to be a case 
of out of turn promotion. She contended that the Applicant approached the Punjab 
Service Tribunal in Appeal No.2094 of 2006, and the Tribunal accepted his 
Appeal, by its judgment dated 13.10.2006, by remanding his case to the 
concerned authority for re-consideration of his case for conformation as Assistant 
Sub-Inspector (ASI) from the date he was due for promotion to the post of ASI, 
subject to his service record being satisfactory after the period when he would 
have completed his two years probation period. Therefore, the learned counsel 
submitted that the orders of the IG in the case of the Applicant are required to be 
set aside.  
10. 
Sardar Ashiq Mehmood Khan Saddozai, learned ASC, appears for the 
Petitioner in Criminal Original Petition No.55 of 2017 and contends that the case 
of the Petitioner is identical to the case of Muhammad Haseeb Anjum. According 
to him, the Petitioner filed Appeal No.140 of 1998 before the Punjab Service 
Tribunal, which was allowed, with the observation that he was due for 
consideration as well as promotion as an Inspector alongwith the confirmed Sub-
Inspectors and that he be considered for promotion with effect from 20.08.1995, 
without prejudice to the seniority of Mohammad Ramzan and Mohammad Nazir 
whose promotion was deferred for want of requisite record, subject to fulfillment 
of prescribed requirement.  
11. 
Mr. Talat Farooq Sheikh, learned ASC, appeared for the Applicants, 
namely Muhammad Sarwar Awan and Muhammad Iqbal who were issued notices 
by this Court on 20.03.2017. He, on the legal plane, adopted the arguments of Kh. 
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
9
Haris Ahmed, learned ASC, and contended that Muhammad Sarwar Awan was 
given out of turn promotion pursuant to the directions of the Lahore High Court in 
Writ Petition No.8147 of 1998, on the analogy of the cases of SSP Javed Hussain 
Shah and SP Umer Virk, to avoid discrimination. The Department challenged the 
judgment of the Lahore High Court, by filing Civil Petition No.226-L of 2000, 
which was dismissed on 26.04.2000, by this Court, as it was barred by time. He 
further submits that the matter had attained finality, therefore, the out of turn 
promotion granted to Muhammad Sarwar Awan was protected in light of the said 
paragraphs 111 and 143. As regards Muhammad Iqbal the learned ASC stated, 
that he was granted out of turn promotion as Inspector with effect from 
01.08.1992, by the Additional IG, Punjab. However, in compliance of the 
judgment dated 15.06.2005, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal 
No.2548 of 2004, the date of his out of turn promotion was revised as 09.07.1990. 
The Department filed Civil Appeal No.203 of 2006 before this Court, which was 
dismissed on 28.05.2007, on the ground that Appeal filed by the said police 
officer without impleading the Government of the Punjab was not competent. The 
learned counsel submitted that the case of Muhammad Iqbal is also protected in 
view of the aforesaid paragraphs 111 and 143. 
12. 
The Applicant Jameel Ahmed appeared in person, pursuant to the notice 
issued on 20.03.2017. He states that he adopts the arguments of Kh. Haris Ahmed, 
learned ASC.  
13. 
Ms. Aysha Hamid, the learned ASC, represents the petitioner in Crl.O.P 
33/2017 and contends that the present contempt petition is filed under the 
impression that the Punjab Government which had formed a Committee to look 
into and remove the so called anomalies in the judgment of this Court in the 
Shahid Pervaiz case and that the Government intends to recall the orders/letters 
withdrawing the out of turn promotions given to many police officers/officials. 
She stated that there are no anomalies in the said judgment and that the real 
purpose of the Committee, headed by the Law Minister, was to undo the effect of 
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
10
the judgment on a pick and choose basis. Learned counsel submits that the IG’s 
report is based on individual speaking orders and she supports those orders as 
they are in consonance with the principles enunciated in the judgment in the 
Shahid Pervaiz case dated 30.12.2016; whereas the opinion of Home Department, 
Government of Punjab, misconstrues the said judgment, moreover, the Home 
Department’s opinion also agrees with the IG whereby the out of turn promotions 
granted to some of the police officers/officials were recalled without mentioning 
any reason to take a divergent view in respect thereof. She quoted the example of 
Sarwar Awan, Akhter Umer Hayat Lalyka, Rana Shahid Pervaiz and Awais Malik 
and contended that Sarwar Awan was granted out of turn promotion twice and his 
second out of turn promotion was pursuant to Court orders dated 22.06.1999 
passed by Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No.8147 of 1998 on the analogy of 
SSP Javed Hussain Shah and SP Umer Virk, due to purported discrimination. 
Akhter Umer Hayat Lalyka was also granted out of turn promotion as DSP, by the 
Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No.2445 of 1995, on the basis of 
purported discrimination by citing precedent of Sub-Inspector Waqar Ahmed, 
who was granted out of turn promotion by the Department and not by the Court, 
therefore, after the judgment dated 30.12.2016, when the out of turn promotion 
given to S.I Waqar Ahmed, was recalled, the reason of discrimination on the basis 
of which Writ Petition of Akhter Umer Hayat Lalyka was allowed no longer 
remained. Moreover, the earlier recommendation of the Department in favour of 
the said officer was withdrawn. Rana Shahid Pervaiz was also granted out of turn 
promotion through Writ Petition No.28879 of 1997, by the Lahore High Court, on 
the ground of purported discrimination, by holding that the other participants of 
the Thokar Niaz Beg operation including, inter alia, Javed Hussain Shah and 
Muhammad Umer Virk, had been granted out of turn promotions. The learned 
counsel next quoted the case of Awais Malik, who too was granted out of turn 
promotion on the basis of verdict in Writ Petition No.19749 of 1997, which was 
based on decision in Writ Petition No.17474 of 1997. As regards Karamatullah 
Malik, Naeem ul Hassan and Jamat Ali Bukhari, the learned counsel contended, 
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
11
that they were not protected by any judicial pronouncement and the cases of 
Haseeb Anjum and Muhammad Iqbal relate to the issue of seniority and not out of 
turn promotion. The learned counsel concluded by contending that all the cases 
which came before this Court were dismissed on the ground of limitation and not 
on merits, therefore, it would not constitute res judicata or be covered by the 
afore-quoted paragraphs 111 to 143. 
14. 
Before proceeding to decide the aforesaid matters we want to dispel the 
notion that we are reviewing the judgment in the Shahid Pervaiz case in general or 
paragraphs 111 and 143 in particular. The IG of Police, Punjab pursuant to the 
judgments of this Court looked at each case of out of turn promotion. He issued 
notices to all concerned and considered their respective comments and thereafter 
decided each individual case. These matters pertain to the Punjab Police, which is 
a disciplined force at the apex of which is the IG of Police. The matters of 
seniority are settled/determined by the designated competent authority and, if any 
official or officer has any reservation with regard thereto a representation can be 
preferred to the designated authority and if he/she is still not satisfied an appeal 
can be filed before the competent tribunal, which in this case would be the Punjab 
Service Tribunal. Article 212 of the Constitution categorically mandates that such 
a tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction with regard to all matters relating to the terms 
and conditions of service. Against the decision of the tribunal an appeal can only 
be entertained by the Supreme Court provided it involves a substantial question of 
law of public importance and leave is granted to consider the same (Article 212(3) 
of the Constitution).  
15. 
The aforesaid officials/officers of the Police were recommended for out of 
turn promotion either by their superiors or claimed it because similarly placed 
persons were given it. The recommendations were either not accepted by the 
competent authority/IG or they were disregarded. They therefore proceeded to file 
a petition in the High Court or approached the Tribunal.  We are clear in our mind 
that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such petitions under Article 
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
12
199 of the Constitution, let alone to issue writs of the nature that were issued. If at 
all the said petitioners were aggrieved by not receiving out of turn promotion they 
should have proceeded on the stipulated legal path which has been mentioned 
above. The learned AG and the learned counsel representing the said 
officials/officers of Police have made much of the fact that the cases of some of 
these persons had come before this Court, even though this Court had simply 
dismissed the petitions on the ground of limitation. Such orders of this Court 
cannot be categorized as a decision in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution. 
The issue whether out of turn promotion was legal and whether the High Court 
could consider the same under Article 199 of the Constitution was not considered 
either by the High Court or by this Court in any of the referred to 
judgments/orders. As regards the decision of the Tribunal it was given on the 
basis that the appellant had been discriminated against vis-à-vis his companions, 
however, when the companions out of turn promotion too has been withdrawn 
there remained no element discrimination. The matter in issue before us is also 
not the same which was in issue before the fora below and, therefore, it would 
also not constitute res judicata.  
16. 
As mentioned above, the IG of Police, Punjab considered the judgments of 
this Court with regard to the out of turn promotion cases and after examining each 
person’s case decided the same. Neither the referred to letter of the Home 
Department nor the learned AG have pointed out any legal defect in the 
determination by the IG. They have simply referred to the afore-quoted 
paragraphs 111 and 143 and stated that the officials/officers, mentioned above,  
had been declared to be entitled to receive out of turn promotion by the fora 
below, and that these orders/judgments had not been set aside by this Court, 
therefore, the case of these individuals would be protected. With respect to the 
learned counsel we cannot bring ourselves to agree with this contention because it 
is not based on any legal or constitutional premise. The foundation of the said 
paragraphs 111 and 143 on which they have erected their case also overlooks both 
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
13
the context and wording of the said paragraphs. Paragraph 111 specifically states 
that out of turn promotions would remain intact, “unless reviewed”, without 
restricting such review by this Court alone. The IG of Police has reviewed the 
matter at his end after issuing notices to all concerned and hearing all those who 
availed of the opportunity of the hearing which was provided to them and 
thereafter passed separate detailed orders in respect of each individual. As already 
mentioned the orders of the IG have not been assailed on the ground that the same 
are contrary to any legal or constitutional provision. We have also examined the 
same and have not found any illegality therein. On the contrary it is based upon 
the principles in the cited judgments of this Court. In such a situation, and where 
the orders passed by the IG conform to the law as has been declared by this Court 
in the referred to judgments, no exception can be taken thereto. The report of the 
IG should be acted upon and notifications with regard to withdrawing the out of 
turn promotions be immediately issued and compliance report in this regard be 
submitted for our perusal in Chambers within ten days.  
17. 
It should also not be lost sight of that the competent authority/the IG had 
decided not to grant out of turn promotion to the officials/officers who then went 
to court/tribunal. At that juncture the Government of Punjab had resisted these 
cases, but, had belatedly filed appeals before this Court against the 
orders/judgments granting out of turn promotions. However, now before us the 
Home Department and the learned AG have taken a complete u-turn and support 
the very same out of turn promotions that were earlier opposed by them on the 
pretext of the judgment in the Shahid Pervaiz case. We were not informed by the 
Government that a Committee headed by the Law Minister was formed to attend 
to the purported anomalies in our judgments. What the Committee did is also not 
known. It is a matter of concern that it was not disclosed to us that the said 
Committee had been set up by the Government, of which we come to know from 
private parties. The referred to letter of the Home Department also makes no 
reference to this Committee.  
C.M.A. No. 687/17 in CRP. 49/16, etc. 
14
18. 
Before departing with this judgment we once again reiterate that the Police 
is a disciplined force and officials/officers employed in the police should not 
embark upon unnecessary litigation such as claiming out of turn promotions. If, 
however, they have a genuine grievance the same should be taken before the 
forums that the law provides instead of initiating proceedings before the High 
Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. Not a single one of the judgments, on 
which reliance is placed by the counsel who represent the said police 
officials/officers, have discussed how jurisdiction was assumed in a matter which 
the Constitution clearly does not permit or how the constitutional bar contained in 
Article 212 was overcome.  
19. 
The listed Applications and Criminal Original Petitions were decided vide 
order dated 28.03.2017: 
“For reasons to be recorded later, the listed Applications and 
Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of in the terms that the 
view point of the Inspector General of Police, Punjab is correct and 
the officers shall be de-notified in terms of the speaking orders 
passed by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab.” 
 
 
The aforesaid are the reasons for the aforesaid order.   
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Bench-III  
Islamabad: 
29.03.2017 
 
Approved for Reporting  
(Sohail)